SMAL HAKKI BURSEV AND THE POLITICS OF BALANCE

MERVE TABUR

BOAZ UNIVERSITY
2011

SMAL HAKKI BURSEV AND THE POLITICS OF BALANCE

Thesis submitted to the

Institute for Graduate Studies in Social Sciences
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts
in
History

by
Merve Tabur

Boazii University
2011

smail Hakk Bursevi and the Politics of Balance

The thesis of Merve Tabur

has been approved by:

Assist. Prof. Derin Terziolu

_______________________________

(Thesis Advisor)

Assoc. Prof. idem Kafesiolu

_______________________________

Assoc. Prof. Zeynep Sabuncu

_______________________________

September 2011

Thesis Abstract
Merve Tabur, smail Hakk Bursevi and the Politics of Balance

This thesis examines the religio-political commentary of a late seventeenth and early
eighteenth century Celveti sheikh, smail Hakk Bursevi, who operated in the lands
of the Ottoman Empire. The main focus is on the representation of political and
spiritual authorities and Sufi-state relations in six texts composed by Bursevi in the
early eighteenth century. The analysis of these narrative sources reveals that smail
Hakk Bursevi was one of the many commentators on what has been narrated as a
post-Sleymanic decline in Ottoman historiography up to this day. As a follower of
the twelfth century mystic Ibn Arabi, Bursevi defined the reasons of decline and
provided possible solutions to restore order within a religious discourse which fed
from Sufi notions and concepts. Thus he formulated a Sufi interpretation of the
decline paradigm. The estrangement of spiritual and political authorities, represented
by the Sufi sheikh and the sultan respectively, formed the basis of his arguments.
Furthermore, his views regarding the spiritual authority of the Sufi sheikh as the saint
and the inheritor of the prophet reflect the ways in which the Sufi sheikh founded his
legitimacy and situated himself vis-a-vis the Ottoman state. This thesis elaborates
Bursevis political thought by contextualizing it not only within particular
intellectual traditions but also within the historical realities of the period.

iii

Tez zeti
Merve Tabur, smail Hakk Bursevi ve tidal Siyaseti

Bu tez, ge onyedinci ve erken onsekizinci yzyllarda Osmanl mparatorluu

topraklarnda faaliyet gstermi olan Celveti eyhi smail Hakk Bursevinin dinisiyasi yorumlarn incelemektedir. Ana odak Bursevinin erken onsekizinci yzylda
yazd alt metinde siyasi ve ruhani otoritenin ve Sufi-devlet ilikilerinin temsili
sorunsaldr. Anlatya dayanan bu kaynaklarn analizi smail Hakk Bursevinin
Kanuni Sultan Sleyman sonras dnemi Osmanl k dnemi olarak ele alan
yorumculardan biri olduunu ortaya koymaktadr. Onikinci yzyl mistii Ibn
Arabinin takipisi olan Bursevi, kn sebeplerini ve dzenin salanmasna
ynelik olas zmleri tasavvufi terimlerden ve kavramlardan beslenen dini bir
syleme dayanarak aklamaktadr. Bu sebeple k paradigmasna sufi yorumu
getirdii sylenebilir. Argmanlarnn temelini srasyla eyh ve sultan tarafndan
temsil edilen ruhani ve siyasi otoritelerin ayrlmas oluturmaktadr. Bu adan,
Bursevinin peygamberin varisi ve veli olarak deerlendirdii sufi eyhinin ruhani
otoritesine ynelik grleri, eyhin meruiyetini salama ve kendisini Osmanl
devletine kar konumlandrma yntemlerini yanstmaktadr. Bu tez Bursevinin
siyasi dncesini sadece belirli entelektel akmlar ierisinde ele almakla
kalmamakta, ayn zamanda dnemin tarihsel gereklerinin balamna oturtmaya
almaktadr.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First of all, I would like to thank my advisor Derin Terziolu for her unceasing
patience and guidance during the writing process of this thesis. She has provided not
only great insights to help me formulate my arguments but also spiritual support at
every point I found myself incapable of continuing. I also thank idem Kafesiolu
and Zeynep Sabuncu for reading my thesis and making precious comments for its
betterment. I would like to thank also TBTAK for granting me a generous
scholarship throughout my masters program and the library of SAM for letting me
make use of their extensive collection. I also present my thanks to Aylin Ylmaz for
sparing the time to correct the formatting of this thesis and Oya Arkan for helping
me with the process of submitting my thesis. I appreciate the kind support of Kamber
Ylmaz and Seyfi Berk, the dear employees of the Boazii University Library, for
facilitating my research at the library.
My dear friend Uur Bahadr Bayraktar has been a continuous support at every
stage of this research. He has patiently read my chapters, made comments and
helped me shape my arguments with his insights. Without his academic and spiritual
support, this work could not have been completed.
Lastly I would like to thank my parents Tunca Tabur and Mehmet Atilla Tabur
for always being there for me and supporting me in everything I do. It is to them I
dedicate this thesis.

CONTENTS
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 1
Secondary Literature ....................................................................................... 6
Historiographical Discussion and Sources ......................................................24
CHAPTER II: SMAL HAKKI BURSEV AND THE CELVETYYE ORDER.... 32
The Emergence of the Celvetiyye Order.........................................................32
The Early Life and Education of smail Hakk Bursevi ..................................38
The Period of Vicegerency.............................................................................47
Bursevi Operating as the Sufi Sheikh .............................................................55
Introducing smail Hakk Bursevis Tuhfes: Language, Purposes, Audience ..59
Sufi Author vis--vis Socio-Economic and Political Power Groups................72
CHAPTER III: CONCEPTUALIZING SPIRITUAL AND POLITICAL
AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................. 79
Order in the Cosmos, Order in the World .......................................................79
Governance of the Divine Names ...................................................................84
Aktab- rad: Expansion of the Spiritual Government ...................................89
The Issue of Manifestation and Visibility .......................................................94
Centrality of the Sultan and the Pole ............................................................ 103
Unity of Rule ............................................................................................... 108
Caliphate and Ottoman Superiority Contested .............................................. 109
CHAPTER IV: MAINTENANCE OF ORDER..................................................... 124
A Balanced Interpretation of Religion: Sharia and the Divine Truth ............. 124
Justice and Discipline .................................................................................. 132
Sultanate as a Trust: Discourse of Rights and Duties .................................... 141
Conformity and the Absolutist Ideal............................................................. 144
CHAPTER V: A DECLINE PARADIGM FOR THE SUFI SHEIKH: REASONS OF
DECLINE ........................................................................................................ 152
Religious Scholars as Ehl-i nkar ................................................................. 154
Sufis as Ehl-i lhad ...................................................................................... 166
Social Critique: Impiety and Commingling .................................................. 174
CHAPTER VI: SUFI SHEIKH AND POLITICAL AUTHORITY ........................ 180
Inheritors of the Prophet: Submission to the Sufi Sheikh as the Saint ........... 186
Historical Consciousness of the Sufi ............................................................ 194
smail Hakk Bursevi and the Sufi-State Relations ....................................... 213
CHAPTER VII: CONCLUSION........................................................................... 218
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................. 223
vi

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

This study is the outcome of an effort to study on a much neglected period of

Ottoman Sufism: the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. It is most of all
an attempt in intellectual history. Focusing my attention on a particular Sufi sheikh
from the Celveti order, smail Hakk Bursevi, and his writings, I aim to analyze his
religio-political discourse within the broader socio-political context and intellectual
traditions at the same time.
The period in which Bursevi lived (1653 1725) witnessed the rule of five
sultans (Mehmed IV, Sleyman II, Ahmed II, Mustafa II and Ahmed III) and the
Kprls who occupied the office of the grand vizier in an unbroken chain between
the years 1656-1683 and at intervals in the early eighteenth century. While Mehmed
IV was deposed after the Battle of Mohacs, Mustafa II was dethroned in a janissary
uprising (Edirne Vakas) in 1703. Although Bursevi did not live long enough to see
it, in 1730 Ahmed III was also going to be deposed by a janissary uprising, that of
Patrona Halil. The rising visibility of the janissaries in political decision making
processes was coupled by the increasing significance of vizieral households, local
notables and palace staff (specifically the chief eunuchs) in the governance of the
empire. One can speak of a gradual diffusion of political power among diverse
groups and an expansion in the state apparatus during this period.
The later part of the seventeenth century was marked by constant wars with the
Holy League which started with the second siege of Vienna in 1683. As the wars in

the European front ceased with Karlowitz (1699) and Istanbul (1703) Treaties,
territorial losses pointed once again to the vincibility of the Ottomans which many
early modern and modern historians viewed as one of the many signs of an Ottoman
decline. However the period of peace did not last long since the Ottomans fought
against Russia in 1710-1711 and against Venice and Austria in 1715-1718.
Indeed the period starting from the 1580s (referred to as the post-Sleymanic
age) was marked for Ottomans by constant warfare both in the eastern and western
fronts (only to stagnate in short intervals), increasing military defeats, janissary
rebellions, banditry in the countryside, dethronements of sultans, political
factionalization breeding ties of patronage along with increasing economic and social
mobilization.1 From a wider angle, Baki Tezcan claims that this was an era in which
expansion in the political nation was matched by a correlated expansion in the
rising economic and social power of diverse groups in the ruling elites, only to brim
over to common men and women who by the early eighteenth century constituted an
urban middle class.2 We should keep in mind that the seventeenth century was also

Dana Sajdi, Decline, Its Discontents and Ottoman Cultural History: By Way Of
Introduction, in Ottoman Tulips, Ottoman Coffee: Leisure and Lifestyle in the Eighteenth Century,
ed. idem (London, New York: Tauris Academic Studies, 2007), pp. 1-40.
2

I use the phrase political nation in reference to Baki Tezcans use of the term. The
expansion of the political nation in the early modern period indicates the increasing visibility of
previously under-represented groups in the political arena. Throughout the seventeenth century they
increasingly have more influence in the political decision-making processes. One such group is the
janissaries, who by forming alliances with the grand mufti have influenced the deposition of many
sultans. Other groups include royal women, bureaucrats, palace staff, etc. The political nation is
thus a generic term used to denote all those groups who participate in the political arena as historical
agents. Baki Tezcan, The Second Ottoman Empire: Political and Social Transformation in the Early
Modern World (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010); For a similar view that approaches
the issue from the perspective of the offices of the grand mufti and the grand vizier: Hseyin Ylmaz,
Osmanl Devletinde Batllama ncesi Merutiyeti Gelimeler, Divan Disiplinleraras
almalar Dergisi 13, no. 28 (2008).

marked by public religious discussions taking place at the mosque pulpits. The main
parties to these discussions were mosque preachers who responded to the
transformations the Ottoman society was undergoing through a sharia-minded
religious discourse. Although these fervent discussions have frequently been
described as a Kadzadeli contention against the Sufis, the lines between the two
groups were not necessarily so clearly drawn. Indeed both shared a common
discourse of piety and sharia abidance and the same cultural space of the mosque in
voicing their concerns since in the seventeenth century it had become a usual practice
for Sufi sheikhs to serve as mosque preachers.
Many Ottoman commentators reflected on these transformations, shaking of
the status quo and the gradual decentralization of the absolutist central government
as a sign of decline and decay which reflected itself in all segments of the society.
Scholars from various milieus reflected on the perceived decay and degeneration of
the Ottoman society and institutions in their writings and provided remedies to
establish order again.3 Although it is difficult to tell whether these commentaries that
addressed mostly figures of political authority (mainly the sultan, the grand vizier
and other high-ranking statesmen) were sincere attempts at reform or instruments for
pragmatic authors to establish networks of patronage, one can indicate for sure that

For a discussion regarding the transformations viewed as decline by Ottomans in the early
modern period see Cemal Kafadar, The Question of Ottoman Decline, in Harvard Middle Eastern
and Islamic Review 4, no. 1-2 (1999), pp. 30-75; For a work that reassesses the European narratives of
early modern Ottoman decline: Caroline Finkel, `The Treacherous Cleverness of Hindsight`: Myths
of Ottoman Decay, in Re-Orienting the Renaissance: Cultural Exchange with the East, ed. Gerald M.
Maclean (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), pp. 148-174; Donald Quataert, Ottoman History
Writing and the Changing Attitudes Towards the Notion of Decline, History Compass 1, no. 1
(Jauary-December 2003), pp. 1-9.

the most popular genre among commentators was the mirrors for princes.4 A wide
range of commentators including bureaucrats, administrators and religious scholars
made use of the readily available concepts, imagery, motifs, stories and literary
conventions of the genre and adjusted them to their own needs.5 Among the most
frequently used themes were the morality and piety of the rulers, justice, order and
disorder of the world, balance and the indispensability of counseling statesmen.6
There were also more reform-minded treatises whose most popular examples were
given by figures like Ltfi Paa, Katib elebi, Koi Beg and Defterdar Sar Mehmed
Paa. Both the advice and reform treatities revolved around a narrative of decline and
degradation which has affected the historiography of the early modern Ottoman
Empire up to this day.7
Bursevi as a sunna-minded, sharia-abiding Celveti sheikh who witnessed the
changes of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries belonged to one of the
groups who participated in this exhaustive critique and commentary activity through

Rifaat Abou-El Hajj, The Expression of Ottoman Political Culture in the Literature of
Advice to Princes (Nasihatnameler): Sixteenth to Twentieth Centuries, Sociology in the Rubric of
Social Science, eds. R. K. Bhattarcharya and A.K. Ghosh (Calcutta, 1995), pp. 282-292; Bernard
Lewis, Ottoman Observers of Ottoman Decline, Islamic Studies 1, (1962), pp. 71-87; Douglas A.
Howard, Genre and Myth in The Ottoman Advice for Kings Literature, in The Early Modern
Ottomans: Remapping the Empire, eds. Virginia H. Aksan and Daniel Goffman (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2007) pp. 137-166; Fatih alr, Decline of a Myth: Perspectives on
the Ottoman Decline, The History School, no. 9 (January-April, 2011) pp. 37-60.
5

Howard, Genre and Myth, pp. 147-148.

Ibid., pp. 137-166.

Baki Tezcan, The Politics of Early Modern Ottoman Historiography, in The Early Modern
Ottomans: Remapping the Empire, eds. Virginia H. Aksan and Daniel Goffman (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2007) pp. 167-198.

an adaptation of the available literary tools within a religio-political discourse.8 He

was not only a prolific author who composed more than a hundred and twenty works
but one who dispersed his religio-political commentaries in a variety of his texts. The
way in which Bursevi perceived decline in the position of the Sufi sheikh (which he
conceptualized as a saint) vis--vis political authority in his time constituted the core
of his narrative regarding social and political disorder. For him the essential reason
behind this disorder laid in the alienation of spiritual authority from political
authority symbolized in the estrangement of sultans and statesmen from Sufi sheikhs.
The Sufi epitomized in his existence the essentials of a balanced self governance
combining the rules of the sharia, the sunna of the prophet and Sufi mores. This was
the exact system Bursevi wished would be reflected in the governance of the empire.
It was thus deemed necessary not only for the sultan but also for all other statesmen
(and religious authorities) to actively engage in the improvement of their morality
through engagement with Sufis. However, because they did not value Sufis, ask for
their advice and make efforts to enjoin the Sufi path, rulers had gone astray under the
influence of extremist people which in turn caused disorder to prevail in the society.9

For a late sixteenth century example of political commentaries made by a Sufi, see Nathalie
Clayer, Quand l'hagiographie se fait l'cho des drglements socio-politiques: Le Menkibnme de
Mniri Belgrd, Syncrtisme et hrsies dans l'Orient seldjoukide et ottoman (Xve-XVIIe siecles) ed.
Gilles Veinstein (Leuven: Peeters, 2005), pp. 363-381; Nathalie Clayer, Mniri Belgradi: Un
Reprsentant de la ilmiyye dans la rgion de Belgrade fin XVIe dbut du XVIIe siecle, Frauen,
Bilder und Gelehrte - Arts, Women and Scholars, eds. Chistopth K. Neumann and Sabine Prator
(Istanbul: Simurg, 2002), pp. 549-568; For a seventeenth century example of a nasihatname written
by a Sufi see Derin Terziolu, Sunna-Minded Sufi Preachers in Service of the Ottoman State: The
Nasihatname of Hasan Addressed to Murad IV, Archivum Ottomanicum, no. 27 (2010).
9

smail Hakk Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye, in Tuhfe: Seyr-i Sluk, eds. Mehmet Ali Akidil
and eyda ztrk (Istanbul: nsan Yaynlar, 2000) p.209/ Fol. 8b-9a. The volume cited includes
three tuhfes of Bursevi and henceforth will be cited with the name of Bursevi instead of the editors for
practical reasons.

Bursevi positioned the influence of these two generic groups of people to make a
case of the two extreme poles around which his discourse of balance was
constructed. He also provided remedies and counsels not only for the rulers, but also
for the religious scholars and common people for the establishment of equilibrium in
the social sphere.
Since he was a religious scholar, Bursevis discussion relied heavily on a
religio-mystical appropriation of the abovementioned themes, stories and imagery. A
prominent aspect of the tuhfes analyzed for the purposes of this thesis is that they do
not necessarily fit into the genre of mirrors for princes (except for Tuhfe-i Aliyye) by
virtue of their organization and contents. However, throughout these works Bursevi
made frequent recourse to the same themes, conventions and concepts that have been
used by Ottoman mirror authors since the mid-sixteenth century in representing the
political system in which they lived. Therefore an approach which focuses on the
circulation of these shared discourses in different forms of texts which addressed
various people rather than the mirrors as a genre can be beneficial in shedding light
on the intellectual worlds of early modern Ottomans.

Secondary Literature

At this stage, it is difficult to speak of a comprehensive historiography on Ottoman

political thought which establishes continuities, divergences and transformations
within the currents of Ottoman intellectual history and connects it to other strands of
thought emanating from different polities in time and space. Ahmet Yaar Ocaks
article in that respect is one of the few attempts at delineating the main intellectual
traditions in which Ottoman religious and political thought is rooted. The article is
6

helpful in providing the general framework of Ottoman intellectual thought and

undertakes a very difficult task. However for the sake of theoretization the author
sometimes slips into simplified categories which may cause more obstacles than
provide help if not scrutinized carefully.10 The difficulty arises partly from the fact
that the Ottoman scholars, even in their heyday of political expression in the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, did not produce independent works dealing with
political theory or philosophy. The historian has to dig in a wide range of works to
catch a glimpse of the Ottomans views regarding political authority and how they
related to it. Cemal Kafadar has wonderfully emphasized the diversity of these
sources such as fetvas, literature on ethics and jurisprudence, poetry and stories along
with the widely recognized mirrors for princes and histories.11
Among these sources the advice/reform treatises written within a period
stretching from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century have gained much attention in
modern historiography.12 Some of these advice/reform treatises have been translated
into English by scholars such as Andreas Tietze, Walter Livingston Wright and

10

Ahmet Yaar Ocak, Osmanl mparatorluunda Dnce Hayat, 14.-17. Yzyllar, in

Yenialar Anadolusunda slamn Ayak Sesleri: Osmanl Dnemi (Istanbul: Kitap Yaynevi, 2011)
pp. 147-192.
11

Cemal Kafadar, Osmanl Siyasal Dncesinin Kaynaklar zerine Gzlemler, in Modern

Trkiyede Siyasi Dnce vol. 1, 8th ed. (stanbul: letiim Yaynlar, 2009), pp. 23-36.
12

Some preliminary works on the subject: Bernard Lewis Ottoman Observers on Ottoman
Decline which provides only preliminary information without much critical stance towards the
handling of sources. Bernard Lewis, Ottoman Observers of Ottoman Decline, Islamic Studies 1
(1962), pp. 71-87; Agah Srr Levend, Siyaset-nameler, Trk Dili Aratrmalar Yll Belleten
(1962): 162-194; Cornell H. Fleischer, "From eyhzade Korkud to Mustafa li: Cultural Origins of
the Ottoman Nasihatname," in IIIrd Congress on the Social and Political History of Turkey. Princeton
University 24-26 August 1983, eds. Heath W. Lowry and Ralph S. Hattox (Istanbul: The Isis Press,
1990), pp. 67-77.

Geoffrey Lewis.13 These are becoming increasingly more available in Latin

transcriptions and modern Turkish as well.14 The common trend has been to
differentiate between works focusing generically on morality and ethics following
the ancient Perso-Islamic tradition of counseling rulers and reform treatises which
offer a more specific approach to the Ottoman state mechanism and historical
realities from an administrative perspective. Particularly with the expansion of the
bureaucracy during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, bureaucrats became one
of the most visible producers of such texts. Thus modern historians focus has been
mostly on the writings of statesmen, administrators and bureaucrats whose political
thoughts have been analyzed within a discourse of kanun (sultanic-secular law)
minded reform as opposed to sharia-minded reformism. Indeed such a simple
dichotomy of secular religious has not proved beneficial in delineating the
subtleties and common themes of Ottoman political discourses used by different
authors with fluid identities, loyalties and hence intellectual views.

13

Andreas Tietze, Mustafa Alis Counsel for Sultans of 1581, 2 vols, (Wien: Verlag der
sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1979-1982); Katip elebi, The Balance of Truth, ed.
G.L. Lewis (London: Allen and Unwin, 1957); Sar Mehmet Paa, Ottoman Statecraft: The Book of
Counsel for Vezirs and Governors (Nas'ih l-vzera ve'l-mera) of Sari Mehmed Pasha, the
Defterdr ed. Walter Livingston Wright, Jr. (London: H. Milford, Oxford University Press; Princeton,
Princeton University Press, 1935).
14

For examples see: Koi Bey, Koi Bey Risalesi: (Eski ve yeni harflerle), ed. Ylmaz Kurt
(Ankara: Aka, 1998); Aziz Efendi, Kanunname-i Sultani li Aziz Efendi, On Yedinci Yzylda Bir
Osmanl Devlet Adamnn Islahat Teklifleri, transl. Rhoads Murphey, ed. inasi Tekin (Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University, 1985); Hezarfen Hseyin Efendi, Telhsl-Beyn f Kavnn-i l-i
Osman, ed. Sevim lgren (Ankara: TTK Basmevi, 1988); for a comprehensive list of both the
primary and secondary literature on the kanun minded Ottoman advice and reform treatises until the
twentieth century see: Birgl A. Gler and Nuray E. Keskin, Devlet Reformunu Tarihten almak,
in Tartma Metinleri no. 88 (November 2005), accessed at
http://www.politics.ankara.edu.tr/eski/dosyalar/tm/SBF_WP_88.pdf, 10 September 2011.

Particularly the works of Rifaat Abou El-Haj have been significant attempts to
examine the mirrors for princes books in a critical fashion as reflections of the ways
in which Ottoman intellectuals tried to accommodate social, economical and political
change in their writings.15 Cornell Fleischers study on the life and intellectual output
of the late sixteenth century bureaucrat Mustafa Ali is a leading contribution to the
area since it aims to contextualize the authors life and his political commentary
within the historical realities of the period.16
Another work that stands out among the literature is Douglas Howards article
which focuses on the literary aspects of the mirrors for princes genre. He not only
presents some of the generic themes and motifs available in the majority of the
advice treatises but also comments on the way in which they were organized.17 It is
necessary that such studies on literary conventions, common themes and images
transcend the limits of particular genres to be able to reflect the diffusiveness and
fluidity of political discourses among authors from different backgrounds and the
various genres in which they reflect their ideas. This indeed is one of the prospects of
this thesis.

15

Rifaat Abou-El-Haj. Formation of the Modern State: The Ottoman Empire, Sixteenth to
Eighteenth Centuries, 2nd ed. (New York: Syracuse University Press, 2005); Rifaat Abou-El-Haj,
The Ottoman Nasihatname as a Discourse over Morality, in Mlanges Professeur Robert
Mantran, ed. Abdeljelil Temimi (Zeghouan: Publication du Centre d'Etudes et de Recherches
Ottomanes, 1988), pp. 17-30; Rifaat Ali Abou-El-Haj, Power and Social Order: the Uses of Kanun,
in The Ottoman City and its Parts: Structures and Social Order, ed. Irene A Bierman, Rifaaat AbouEl-Haj, and Donald Preziosi (New Rochelle: A.D. Caratzas, 1991), pp. 77-99.
16

Cornell H. Fleischer, Bureaucrat and Intellectual in the Ottoman Empire: the Historian
Mustafa li (1541-1600) (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986).
17

Howard, Genre and Myth, pp. 137-166.

Besides the advice/reform treatises whose significance for Ottoman political

thought have been consistently repeated in the available literature, state-appointed
histories written by Ottoman scholars have also come to the attention of modern
historians as valuable windows into the minds of their authors.18 In this genre, Lewis
V. Thomass early survey on Naima is useful as an index to Naimas life and the
common themes of his texts but is bereft of a critical analysis of his political
commentary.19 Baki Tezcans works remain to be the most nuanced takes on the
political expressions of Ottoman historians in the early modern period. In the
Politics of Early Modern Ottoman Historiography, he deals particularly with
Ottoman histories produced by court historians in the period between 1550 and 1800
and focuses not only on their contents but their production and reception by the
intellectual circles and the wider public. This way, Tezcan reveals the intricate
correlation between the disempowerment of the sultan and the formation of the state
as a distinct entity from the sultan in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the
rising influence of court historiography and the way in which Ottoman historians
reflected and conceptualized the Ottoman polity in their writings.20 A general review
of the available literature on early modern political thought thus points out to a

18

Kafadar, Osmanl Siyasal Dncesinin Kaynaklar, p. 26.

19

Lewis V. Thomas, A Study of Naima, ed. Norman Itzkowitz (New York: New York
University Press, 1972).
20

Tezcan, The Politics of Early Modern, pp. 167-198; Baki Tezcan, The 1622 Military
Rebellion in stanbul: A Historiographical Journey, in Mutiny and Rebellion in the Ottoman Empire,
ed. Jane Hathaway (Madison: University of Wisconsin, Center for Turkish Studies, 2004), pp. 25-43.
For a more extensive historiographical discussion on the dethronement of Osman II see: Baki Tezcan,
Searching for Osman: A Reassesment of the Deposition of the Ottoman Sultan Osman II (16181622) (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 2001).

10

tendency to focus on the abovementioned two genres: histories and advice/reform

treatises.
One last modern scholar to be mentioned before we pass on to the available
secondary literature on the political expressions of Ottoman Sufis and their
relationship with the state is Gabriel Piterberg. His book is important for its
methodological discussion which lies at the foundation of this thesis as well:
Piterberg focuses on the relationship between political discourses regarding the
Ottoman state as produced in seventeenth century historiographical texts and the
historical realities of the period. He tries to establish a midway between extreme
post-modernist theories of history writing which reduce narrative sources to mere
literary works and the restraint put on modern historians by the dominant paradigm
that claims archival material to be the only reliable historical source.21
Studies on Ottoman Sufism, its relationship with the state and the political
discourses used by Sufis in their texts have frequently been overlooked for the sake
of more theological, literary or cultural debates. The history of Ottoman Sufism is in
dire need of being articulated into the more general arguments regarding intellectual
history and social, economic and political change in the Ottoman Empire. A simple
elaboration of Sufi writings as timeless reflections of theological debates or as pure
expressions of religiosity does not prove sufficient in enhancing our knowledge on
Ottoman Sufis and how they shared in the common repertoire of Ottoman political
discourses through a religio-mystical elaboration. The prevailing obstacle in the way

21

Gabriel Piterberg, An Ottoman Tragedy: History and Historiography at Play, (Berkeley, Los
Angeles, London: University of California Press, 2003).

11

of such an articulation is the stringent style and diverse languages (such as Arabic
and Persian) in which most of these texts were composed. In that respect the theses
composed mostly in the theology faculties of Turkish universities, although devoid
of critical elaborations, are precious attempts at bringing these texts into light in
Latin transcriptions which have been extremely beneficial for the purposes of this
thesis. One of the prospects of this thesis is the critical elaboration and
contextualization of these sources which are available only in raw format and
articulate them into wider discussions on Ottoman political transformations and
thought.
The general tendency in literature on Sufi-state relations and political thought
has been to focus on particular periods and concepts, one such being the period
stretching from the late Seljuk dynasty to the fifteenth century. The focus is on the
role of the ghazi dervishes in the expansion and settlement of the early Ottoman
polity. One of the early works on this issue was composed by mer Ltfi Barkan in
which he emphasized the role of the dervishes in the sedantarization and Islamization
of the Ottomans and their settlement in the newly conquered lands through the
establishment of lodges. Barkan mostly relied on the works of historians such as
Akpaazade and Neri.22 The seminal work about this period remains to be Cemal
Kafadars Between Two Worlds where he explores mostly historical and
hagiographical texts. Even if the authors of such texts were not Sufis themselves,
they were people associated with Sufism like the historian Akpaazade or at least
they had shared in the syncretic and fluid political and cultural environment of the

22

mer L. Barkan, Kolonizatr Trk Dervileri (stanbul: Hamle Yayn Datm, n.d.).

12

frontier society in which the gaza ethos had flourished. 23 Thus although they cannot
be investigated as direct channels into Sufi political thought, they offer us significant
insights to the political discourses used in the expression of the relationship between
the rising Ottoman state and early Ottoman ghazi dervishes (along with their
subsequent marginalization with the centralization policies of the state in the
fifteenth century).
Furthermore, Halil nalcks study on Otman Baba Vilayetnamesi analyses the
way in which dervish-sultan relationships were conceptualized around the notion of
the Pole24 (which is adopted from Ibn Arabi) in a fifteenth century hagiography.
Thus nalck introduces us the early Ottoman usage of a mystical discourse focusing
on sainthood in negotiating power with the state.25 Zeynep Aydoans masters thesis
on the fifteenth century Saltukname, commissioned by Cem Sultan, adds to the study
of hagiographies as political texts.26 Sheikh Bedreddin and his fifteenth century
messianic revolt against the Ottoman state is another much studied subject,

23

Cemal Kafadar, Between Two Worlds: The Construction of the Ottoman State (Berkeley,
CA; London: University of California Press, 1995).
24

In Sufi literature pole refers to the person who is believed to occupy the highest rank in the
spiritual hierarchy of saints. The subtleties of the term and Bursevis take on it will be discussed in the
subsequent chapters.
25

Halil nalck, Dervish and Sultan: An Analysis of the Otman Baba Vilayetnamesi, in The
Middle East and the Balkans under the Ottoman Empire: Essays on Economy and Society (Indiana:
Bloomington, 1993), pp. 19-36.
26

Zeynep Aydoan, An Analysis of the Saltukname in Its Fifteenth Century Context (M.A.
thesis, Boazii University, 2007). See also Ahmet Yaar Ocak, Sar Saltuk ve Saltukname, in
Osmanl Sufiliine Baklar (Istanbul: Tima, 2011) pp. 11-22.

13

sometimes to the detriment of historical criticism by way of an anachronistic reading

of his life and political activism. 27
For the sixteenth century, studies focus mostly on the Sleymanic age.
Transgressing the boundaries of genre is Hseyin Ylmazs doctoral dissertation
which is an extensive study of Ottoman political thought during the reign of
Sleyman I as expressed in a variety of works, through a variety of perspectives. He
thoroughly examines the representation of the sultan, the grand vizier and the
sultanate to comment on the changing political discourses of scholars and the parallel
transformations in the organization of the Ottoman governmental system.28 The most
important aspect of this work for the purposes of this thesis is its introduction of the
mystical theories of rulership into the discussion on political thought and its
consideration of the writings of authors affiliated with Sufism in the sixteenth
century. According to Hseyin Ylmaz, the reason for the increasing circulation of
Sufi concepts, titles and imagery in political discourses during this period was due to
several factors (other than imperial rivalry with the Safavids) such as the increasing
contact with non-Ottoman scholars works, spread of Sufi orders in the empire, the
rising interest of the ulema and the statesmen in Sufism and their millenarian
expectations along with a current of messianism which affected diverse geographies

27

Since there are many works dealing with eyh Bedreddin I provide only a few examples:
Ahmet Yaar Ocak, XIV. Yzyln Ahlatl nl Bir Sufi Feylesofu: eyh Bedreddinin Hocas eyh
Hseyn-i Ahlati, in Osmanl Sufiliine Baklar, pp. 35-43; Abdlbaki Glpnarl, Simavna
Kadsolu eyh Bedreddin (Istanbul: Eti, 1966).
28

Hseyin Ylmaz, The Sultan and the Sultanate: Envisioning Rulership in the Age of
Sleyman the Lawgiver (1520-1566) (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 2005).

14

in early modern Europe and Middle East.29 Fleischers article about the
representation of Suleyman I in terms of messianic imagery is indicative of the widespread circulation of messianic expectations and Sufi discourses in the palace circle
in the sixteenth century.30 Ebru Snmezs masters thesis on the late fifteenth and
early sixteenth century bureaucrat dris-i Bidlisi should also be mentioned at this
point. The sources of this work transgress the mirror genre as well and address the
significance of Bidlisis religio-political writings in constructing the legitimacy of
Ottoman rule vis--vis the Safavids.31
Particularly the sixteenth century has yielded interesting material due to the
visible impact of the Sunnitization policies of the Ottoman state in the changing
associations of the Sufis and their political expressions in texts. Ahmet Yaar Ocaks
extensive research on the Sufi groups who resisted the enforcement of this particular
Sunni interpretation of Islam by the state has produced many important works in the
field all of which cannot be listed here. Ocak particularly focuses on the BayramiMelamis (and their insurgent discourse which revolves around the theme of the Pole)
through analyses of the persecutions of their sheikhs and references to texts produced
by the Bayrami-Melamis themselves.32 The Poles position within the cosmic

29

Ibid., p. 16, p. 129.

30

Cornell H. Fleischer, "The Lawgiver as Messiah: The Making of the Imperial Image in the
Reign of Sleymn," in Soliman le magnifique et son temps, ed. Gilles Veinstein (Paris: La
Documentation Franaise, 1992), pp. 159-77.
31

Ebru Snmez, An Acem Statesman in the Ottoman Court: dris-i Bidls and the Making of
the Ottoman Policy on Iran, (M.A. thesis, Boazii University, 2006).
32

Ahmet Yaar Ocak, Zndklar ve Mlhidler (15.-17. Yzyllar) (stanbul: Tarih Vakf Yurt
Yaynlar, 1998); See the relevant articles in Ocak, Osmanl Sufiliine Baklar.

15

hierarchy and his relationship to the sultan in some cases became an arena where
claims to political authority were contested by groups who propounded the
superiority of the Pole both in spiritual and material realms. In such instances the
concept of the Pole could be used to question the legitimacy of the existing political
authority and hence become a severe threat not only for the sultan but also for highrank statesmen whose positions could be rendered illegitimate as well. Still, the
Bayrami-Melami sources mentioned in Ocaks texts need further narrative analysis
and contextualization within wider intellectual currents.
For the purposes of this thesis, the concept of the Pole is important firstly for
delineating the religio-political discourses used by Sufis to accommodate themselves
vis--vis political authority as historical agents, and secondly for understanding how
they envisioned the Ottoman state and its respective place in the divinely ordained
cosmic order. Pole, which is an essential part of the cult of sainthood has been
conceptualized in a more or less coherent fashion by Ibn Arabi in the twelfth
century and adopted by many Ottoman Sufis. Bursevi, being educated in religious
sciences as much as in Sufism, was a devout follower of Ibn Arabi as well.
However, Ibn Arabi had as many critiques as his followers, the most fervent being
the fourteenth century scholar Ibn Teymiyya. The fervent attacks on Ibn Arabis
mystical doctrines had a long history in the Muslim world before its revival in the
Ottoman context in the sixteenth century among high-ranking ulema such as the
grand mufti and the jurists and in the seventeenth century among medrese graduate
mosque preachers who tried to refute the famous mystics claims by referring to

16

hadith and Qur'anic verses.33 However an analysis of the way in which this concept
entered into the religio-political discourses of Ottoman scholars of Sufi and non-Sufi
backgrounds and the broader impact of Ibn Arabis writings in the Ottoman
intellectual sphere remains to be researched. Victoria Rowe Holbrook has indeed
elaborated on the adoption of the Pole by the Ottoman Melamis through an analysis
of some Bayrami-Melami texts.34 The current thesis also attempts to provide some
information regarding how the concept was elaborated by smail Hakk Bursevi in
the early eighteenth century context as a discursive tool.
Ottoman Sufis in the sixteenth century were not only subject to the disciplinary
mechanisms of the state for outward expressions of their syncretic beliefs or
messianic agendas but also started to be gradually incorporated to the state
mechanism. This is the later stage of a long process in which rather disorganized and
autonomous Sufis of the formative period institutionalized under the umbrella of the
Ottoman state and started to formulate their doctrines and practices in texts which
were domesticated to fit into the official religious ideology in consolidation: Sunni
Islam.35 Nathalie Clayers conceptualization of the Halvetis as sunnitizing agents
during this period sheds light on a much neglected aspect of Sufi-state relations:

33

For a brief overview of the ways in which Ibn Arabis writings continued to influence
scholars in the Islamic world see: James W. Morris, Except His Face: The Political and Aesthetic
Dimensions of Ibn Arabis Legacy, Journal of the Muhyiddn Ibn 'Arab Society 23, (1998), pp. 113.
34

Victoria Rowe Holbrook, Ibn Arabi and Ottoman Dervish Traditions: The Melami SupraOrder, The Muhyiddin Ibn Arabi Society, http://www.ibnarabisociety.org/articles/melami1.html, 2
Oct. 2011.
35

For the characteristics of Sufism at the stage of inception during the eight and nineth
centuries see Ahmet T. Karamustafa, Sufism: The Formative Period (Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press, 2007).

17

Sufis were not mere targets of the disciplinary measures of the state; they also
operated as agents who negotiated a discourse of Sunni orthodoxy in the elaboration
of their relationships with political authority and other religious groups.36 Adding on
Clayers works is Derin Terziolus recent article in which she elaborates on the
formation of the Ottoman state and its association with the Sufis. Her focus is on the
effects of state-sponsored sunnitization and the gradual institutionalization of Sufi
orders.37
It was also during this period that the Celvetiyye emerged as a distinct Sufi
order with Bayrami associations by way of Muhyiddin ftade, the founder of the
order. While ftade did not leave behind much written material, one of his
hagiographies is available in transcription. For the main lines of the life of this
obscure formative figure, Mustafa Bahadrolus thesis is informative but falls short
of capturing the bigger picture within which ftade emerged as a Sufi sheikh.38 The
long introduction to Paul Ballanfats book on ftades poems is prominent for it
opens a more comprehensive gateway to the sheikhs life and ideas through an
analysis both of his hagiographies and the Vakat which consists of the daily notes
taken by his disciple Aziz Mahmud Hdayi.39 Indeed Vakat, this colossal work

36

Nathalie Clayer, Mystiques, Etat et Societe: Les Halvetis dans laire balkanique de la fin du
Xve siecle a nos jours, ed. Ulrich Haarman (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994).
37

Derin Terziolu, Sufis in the Age of State-Building and Confessionalization, 1300-1600,

in The Ottoman World, ed. C. Woodhead (London: Routledge, 2011).
38

Mustafa Bahadrolu, ftade, Tasavvufi Grleri ve Celvetiyye Tarikat (M.A. thesis,

Uluda University, 1990).
39

Paul Ballanfat, The Nightingale in the Garden of Love: The Poems of Hazret-i Pir-i ftade
(Oxford: Anqa Publishing, 2005).

18

written in Arabic, needs to be translated and subjected to a critical analysis to shed

light on early Celveti formation. Aziz Mahmud Hdayi is one of the most significant
Sufi figures of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries and the Celveti order
in particular. The most comprehensive works on his life remain to be the books of H.
Kamil Ylmaz and Ziver Tezeren.40 Although Hdayis letters to Murad III and
Ahmed I are available in Latin transcription, they have not been handled within the
larger framework of sunnitization, imperial rivalry with the Safavids and the roles
played by Sufi sheikhs as agents of this process.41 These letters are precious sources
for they provide direct insight as to how a Sufi sheikh positioned himself vis--vis
political authority and materialized his political expressions in an intimate text which
directly addressed the sultan.
It is surprising to see that there are no critical monographs about the
intellectual output of Aziz Mahmud Hdayi or the Celvetiyye order.42 Most of the
works dealing with this period are either about Halvetis43 or about the silencing of
Sufi groups (such as the Bayrami-Melamis,Glenis, Kalenderis and other groups
influenced by extreme shia beliefs) which resisted policies of sunnitization and
integration into the state mechanism. More conformist Sufi groups like the Celvetis

40

Hasan Kamil Ylmaz, Aziz Mahmud Hdayi ve Celvetiyye Tarikat, (stanbul: Erkam
Yaynlar, 1990); Ziver Tezeren, Seyyid Aziz Mahmud Hdayi: Hayat, ahsiyeti, Tarikat ve Eserleri,
(Istanbul: Edebiyat Fakltesi Basmevi, 1994).
41

For Hdayis letters see: Mustafa Salim Gven, eitli Ynleriyle Aziz Mahmud
Hdayinin Mektuplar (M.A. thesis, Marmara University, 1992). Henceforth, I will cite the
transcriptions of Hdayis letters given in this thesis as Mektuplar.
42

I have not been able to acquire a copy of Gonca Baskcs masters thesis about the role
played by Hdayi in the political sphere. Gonca Baskc, A Life Between Piety and Politics: Aziz
Mahmud Hdayi (ca. 1543-1628) (M.A. thesis, Bilkent University, 2000).
43

John J. Curry, The Transformation of Muslim Mystical Thought in the Ottoman Empire: The
Rise of the Halvet Order, 1350-1650 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2010).

19

who supported an absolutist state agenda but at the same time sought ways of
negotiating power with its representatives have been neglected.
Particularly in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, Sufis emerge
not only as one of the most visible actors in the public scene as mosque preachers,
opinion makers and mentors to statesmen but also as political commentators in texts
which are not necessarily compilations of hagiographies. During this period, on an
unprecedented scale, Sufis started to reflect their religio-political commentary in
textual format (some adopting the nasihatname genre), providing a less mediated
channel into their intellectual world. While the focus has been made mostly on the
writings of statesmen and bureaucrats as reformers, modern historiography on the
seventeenth century had skipped Sufi texts which are significant sources for Ottoman
intellectual history in general and Ottoman representations of political authority
within a religio-political discourse in particular. In that respect, Nathalie Clayers
two articles on the Halveti-Melami sheikh Mnir-i Belgradis political commentary
in Silsiletl-Mukarrebin (a late sixteenth century text), the related chapters of
Terziolus thesis on the seventeenth century Halveti Sheikh Niyazi Msri and her
recent article on one such Sufi figure who composed an advice treatise for Murad IV
in the mid-seventeenth century are prominent contributions to the study of Sufi
religio-political thought directly from the texts they have written.44 Michael
Winters study on Abd al-Wahhab al-Sharani (d. 1565) who operated in Memluk and

44

Clayer, Quand l'hagiographie se fait, pp. 363-381; Clayer, Mniri Belgradi: Un

Reprsentant, pp. 549-568; Terziolu, Sunna-Minded Sufi Preachers; Derin Terziolu, Sufi and
Dissident in the Ottoman Empire: Niyazi-i Misri (1618-1694) (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University,
1999).

20

later in Ottoman Egypt also contains a section on the Sufis views regarding the
state.45
When compared with the Sufis, seventeenth century studies are relatively more
abundant in the case of the Kadzadeli rise to power, the puritanical mosque
preachers who proposed the restoration of religion to its pristine form as experienced
during the time of Prophet Muhammad. They have been conceptualized mostly
within the camp of sharia-minded reformists coming from the lower ranks of the
ulema and not infrequently overlooked as fanatical retrogrades who responded to
social and political transformation with fervent religious conservatism. Particularly
Madeline Zilfis works on the ulema and the Kadzadelis in particular have been
significant contributions in the elaboration of the power struggle between religious
and political authorities and within the religious authorities themselves. However still
these works are devoid of literary analyses of the texts produced or used by the
historical agents themselves hence do not yield much in the way of agents political
thinking.46
In general, studies on Ottoman Sufism become increasingly scarce in the late
seventeenth but mostly in the early eighteenth centuries. Two renowned exceptions
are Elizabeth Sirriyehs and Barbara von Schlegells works on Abdlgani Nablusi (d.
1731), a Sufi from Damascus who just like Bursevi, wrote and travelled

45

Michael Winter, Society and Religion in Early Ottoman Egypt, (New Brunswick:
Transaction Books, 1982).
46
Madeline C. Zilfi. The Politics of Piety: the Ottoman Ulema in the Postclassical Age (16001800). (Minneapolis, MN: Bibliotheca Islamica, 1988); Madeline C. Zilfi, The Kadzadelis:
Discordant Revivalism in Seventeenth Century Istanbul, The Journal of Near Eastern Studies 45, no.
4 (1986), pp. 251-269.

21

extensively. 47 For the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, there is a much richer
literature focusing on Moroccan, Indian and North African Sufism as exemplified by
the works of Vincent Cornell, Carl Ernst and Molly Greene among many others. For
example, authors dealing with the late eighteenth and nineteenth century North
African Sufism have touched upon Sufi-state relations in their writings but mostly
within a discourse of anti-colonial and reformist Sufi activism.
Critical historical scholarship has been extremely negligent in the case of
Bursevi (along with other seventeenth century Celvetis) despite the fact that he was a
prolific author who composed more than one hundred and twenty works. Although
many of his works have been and continue to be transcribed into the Latin alphabet,
attention to Bursevi is almost exclusively limited to theological discussions about
Sufism. Preliminary research about Bursevi has been conducted by Hseyin Vassaf,
Sakb Yldz and M. Ali Ayni, but these works deal mostly with biographical details
and provide only a laconic outline of his intellectual world.48 The most significant
work dealing with Bursevis life and views regarding Celveti doctrine and practices
is Ali Namls book. This work is extremely beneficial since it relies extensively on
Bursevis works (including the ones written in Arabic) and the available secondary

47

Elizabeth Sirriyeh, Sufi Visionary of Ottoman Damascus: Abd al-Ghani alNabulusi, 1641-1731 (London; New York: Routledge Curzon, 2005); Barbara Rosenow von
Schlegell, Sufism in the Ottoman Arab World: Shaykh Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulusi (d. 1143/1731)
(Ph.D. diss., University of California, 1997).
48

Hseyin Vassaf, Kemalname-i Hakk (Bursevi Biyografisi), ed. Murat Yurtsever (Bursa:
Arasta, 2000); Sakb Yldz, Trk Mfessiri smail Hakk Bursevinin Hayat, Atatrk
niversitesi slami limler Fakltesi Dergisi, no. 1 (1975) pp. 103-126; Yldz, brahim Hakk
Hazretlerinin Ahlk Anlay, Atatrk niversitesi slami limler Fakltesi Dergisi, no. 4 (1980), pp.
133-142; M. Ali Ayni, Trk Azizleri I, smail Hakk (stanbul: Marifet Basmevi, 1944).

22

sources to construct his biography in a detailed and coherent manner.49 For

biographical information about smail Hakk Bursevi, I have relied mostly on the
information provided by this book since it is the most comprehensive and recent one.
While some scholars have proposed the emergence of an Islamic awakening
similar to European enlightenment and a current of neo-sufism in the eighteenth
century, this discourse has neither been adopted in detail to analyse Ottoman Sufism
nor has been criticized with reference to the operation of eighteenth century Ottoman
Sufis.50 The neo-sufi argument claims a transformation specific to the eighteenth and
nineteenth century Sufis which made them socially and politically more active as
sharia-minded reformists. Focus on hadith studies and the Muhammedan path,
opposition to the cult of saints and to some of Ibn Arabis teachings formed the
basis of the neo-sufi thought. Although Bursevi did emphasize following the path of
the prophet and studying hadith, he was neither opposed to the cult of saints, nor to
the doctrines of Ibn Arabi. In this thesis, I have touched upon the neo-sufi
arguments in a few places when they were relevant for the discussion, but they in no
way form the general framework of my thesis. I believe that the neo-sufi arguments
are rather reductionist and tend to look for abrubt transformations in eighteenth
century Sufi thought without a critical approach to the historical back ground in
which such changes were rooted.

49

Ali Naml, smail Hakk Bursevi: Hayat, Eserleri, Tarikat Anlay. (Istanbul: nsan
Yaynlar, 2001).
50

For the related discussions see: von Schlegell, Sufism in the Arab World, pp. 16-22; Dina
Le Gall, A Culture of Sufism: Naqshbandis in the Ottoman World, 1450-1700 (New York: State
University Press of New York, 2005), p. 6; Rudolph Peters, Reinhard Shulzes Quest for an Islamic
Enlightenment, in Die Welt des Islams XXX (1990), pp. 160-162; R. S. O'Fahey and Bernd Radtke,
Neo-Sufism Reconsidered, in Der Islam 70 (1993), pp. 52-87.

23

This thesis is thus motivated by the lack of studies focusing on Sufi political
thought particularly in the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. This era in
Ottoman Sufism has been left as a gap with studies focusing either in the nineteenth
or the previous centuries. For us to be able to see the continuities and ruptures in
early modern and modern periods in history, scholarship about eighteenth century as
a transitive era proves necessary. Specifically the texts produced by smail Hakk
Bursevi have still not been handled within a critical historical approach. An analysis
of the writings of this Sufi sheikh might open up new areas of discussion regarding
both the historical transformations of the period and the development of Ottoman
Sufi thought.

Historiographical Discussion and Sources

Any study on Sufism in general, and the intellectual history of Sufism in particular
carries the potential of de-contextualizing both the historical figures under scrutiny
and their intellectual worlds as if they are representatives of timeless religious truths.
Particularly the almost exclusively theological interest in smail Hakk Bursevi and
his works restrains our understanding of Bursevi as a person who lived and produced
ideas within a particular context, being influenced by different historical realities and
currents of thought. In this thesis, I hope to move away from ahistorical and
uncritical theological discussions to a more encompassing understanding of
intellectual history when focusing on the ideas produced by smail Hakk Bursevi. In
that respect, the need for a theoretical foundation for discussion instead of a simple
descriptive analysis is evident. I also find it important that while handling material
related to religio-political discussions, one does not fit historical realities into black
24

and white categories (such as secular-religious and orthodoxy-heterodoxy) for the

sake of simplification and explanation. This may lead to anachronistic reflections of
present-day discourses with regard to Islam on historical figures, but the definition of
orthodoxy is not fixed in time and space and homogeneous.51

On the one hand, when dealing with early modern narrative sources, the barrier
of language proves useful since it avoids a direct identification with the author of the
text. However in case of texts dealing with religious issues, there is always the
potential to identify too much with the historical figure through a shared religious
vocabulary and a feeling of empathy based on belonging to the same religion. It is
necessary to realize that even the uses of these religious (and political) discourses are
not static in time and they tend to change over time.
On the other hand, there are significant Sufi texts particularly within the
Celveti tradition that are written in Arabic, and even the ones written in Ottoman
Turkish are quite difficult to penetrate as a result of the authors heavy reliance on
Sufi terminology involving symbolic meanings and the complex organization of
texts. Language is one of the most important tools for making sense of the
intellectual world of a particular historical period. Since the language of the early
modern Sufi sheikh is so unfamiliar, it is necessary to acquaint oneself with
particular tropes and notions that prevail in Sufi texts. And even that is not enough if
one is dealing with the language of politics which is most often intermingled with
mystical notions in the texts of Sufi authors. Then it proves obligatory to get

51

Brett Wilson, The Failure of Nomenclature: The Concept of Orthodoxy in the Study of
Islam, Comparative Islamic Studies 3, no. 2 (2007), pp. 169-194.

25

acquainted also with the circulation of political images and expressions in other texts
which are not necessarily related to Sufism but reproduce common political
discourses. Only then can we hope to assess the permeation of diverse
representations of political authority in the early modern period in Sufi writings. This
is a process which resembles that of learning a novel language but it is a necessary
one since texts do not provide us direct access to the authors mind unless we are
fairly acquainted with the world in which their authors vocabulary is produced and
to what it refers to. For the hardships arising from such a narrative analysis and for
the sake of being able to be acquainted with more texts in a relatively short period of
time to provide a fuller portrayal of Bursevis religio-political expressions, I
preferred to rely on Latin transcriptions of original texts.
For this thesis, I have relied on six of smail Hakk Bursevis tuhfes (books
presented as gifts to particular people) as my primary sources. These are Tuhfe-i
Aliyye52, Tuhfe-i Recebiyye53, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye54, Tuhfe-i meriyye55, Tuhfe-i

52

There are five extant copies of Tuhfe-i Aliyye in the libraries of Istanbul. The 1774 copy is
located at Atf Efendi Lib. no. 192/1 (49 fol.). Three are located at Selim Aa Lib. EmirhocaKemanke no. 210: One is copied by Mehmed b. Ali el-skdari in 1785, another one is copied by
Seyyid Ahmed in 1855, the other one is undated and the scriber unknown. Last copy is located at
Topkap Emanet Hazinesi no. 1330 (70 fol.).
53

The only known manuscript copy is located at Sleymaniye Lib. Esad Efendi no. 1374 (99
fol.). It is the original copy written by smail Hakk Bursevi in 1718.
54

Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye has eight manuscript copies. Those located at the Sleymaniye Library
are: Halet Efendi, no 211 (194 fol.); Halet Efendi, no 212 (233 fol.); Hasan Hsn Paa, no 809 (555
fol.); Hac Mahmud, no 2327 (197 fol.); Mihriah Sultan, no 164 (331 fol.). Others are located at:
Hac Selim Aa Lib. Hdayi Efendi, no 456; stanbul Lib. No T-2132/1 (209 fol.); Bursa Genel Lib.
no. 77 (175 fol.).
55

There are seven extant copies. Three are located at the Sleymaniye Lib.: The one located at
Mihriah Sultan no. 162 is the original copy written by smail Hakk Bursevi in 1721/1722; The other
two are located at Hac Mahmud no. 2882 (1721/1722) and no. 6362 (1824/1825). Another one which
is copied by Dervizade Mehmed b. Osman in 1818/1819 is located at Milli Lib. A-419/1. The last

26

Vesimiyye56 and Tuhfe-i smailiyye57. Most of Bursevis tuhfes are located in the
Sleymaniye Library. For the purposes discussed above, I used the available Latin
transcriptions of these texts and provided the relevant folio numbers of the original
manuscripts in footnotes. In this respect the book edited by M. Ali Akidil and eyda
ztrk has been very useful for three of Bursevis tuhfes.58 For Tuhfe-i Recebiyye
there are two available transliterations by Selim akrolu and Zbeyir Ake but I
preferred to rely on Akes doctoral dissertation since it is a more scrupulous work
with a strict adherence to the use of Turkish transliteration letters.59 For Tuhfe-i
Hasakiyye I have relied on the transliterations of Mehmet Tabakolu and hsan

two are located at the Library of Faculty of Theology, Ankara University. One of them is undated and
the other one is listed with the year 1861/1862.
56

There are fourteen available copies of which nine are located at the Sleymaniye Lib: Esad
Efendi no. 1474/3 (1730); Hac Beir Aa, no. 359/1-2 (1769); Hac Mahmud no. 2675 (1773); Hac
Mahmud no. 2675/1-2 (1819); Hac Mahmud no. 2260 (1788); Mihriah Sultan no. 219; Pertev Paa
no. 253; Abdullah Efendi no. 32/ (1821); Hac Mahmud Efendi no. 6362/2 (1825). The others are
located at: Nuruosmaniye no. 2220 (1727-1728); Bursa Genel Lib. no. 81 (1774); Millet Lib. eriyye
no. 1179 (1870); Hac Selim Aa Lib. Hdayi Efendi no. 441 (1787); D.T.C. Faculty . Saib Sencer
no. 1801 (1845).
57

There are twelve available manuscript copies. Four are located at Sleymaniye Lib.: Pertev
Paa no. 637 (1802-1803); Mihriah Sultan no. 210; Hac Mahmud Efendi no. 2767; Esad Efendi no.
1548. Others are located at: Hac Selim Aa Lib. Hdayi Efendi no. 449 (1733); Atatrk Kitapl,
Osman Ergin Yazmalar no. 613/2 and no. 987 (1787); Atf Efendi Lib. Atf Efendi Blm no.
1498/3 (1775-1776); stanbul University Central Lib. Nadir Yazma Eserler, no. 1585 (1847), no. 2041
(1835), no. 7210 (1825); Sadberk Hanm Museum, Hseyin Kocaba Yazmalar no. 78 (1835).
58

Bursevi, Tuhfe: Seyr-i Sluk. It is a compilation of the Latin transcriptions of Tuhfe-i

meriyye, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye and Tuhfe-i Aliyye. Tuhfe-i meriyye is a critical edition since Akidil has
compared all of the available manuscripts. The manuscript used for Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye is located at
Hac Mahmud Efendi no. 6362/2 (1825) and in transliteration it has been compared to the available
print copy and the manuscript copy located at Sleymaniye Lib. Hac Mahmud Efendi 2260. The
manuscript used for Tuhfe-i Aliyye is copied by Mehmed b. Ali el-skdari in 1785, and is located at
Selim Aa Lib. Emirhoca-Kemanke no. 210 (35 fol.).
59

Zbeyir Ake, smail Hakk Bursevi'nin Tuhfe-i Recebiyye Adl Eseri (nceleme-Metin)
(Ph.D. diss., Harran University, 2008). The manuscript used is located at Sleymaniye Lib. Esad
Efendi no. 1374 (99 fol.). It is the original copy written by smail Hakk Bursevi in 1718. Henceforth,
the section in which Ake transcribed the original work of Bursevi will be referenced with the name
of Bursevi and the text under question instead of the name of the thesis.

27

Kara.60 For Tuhfe-i smailiyye, I have relied on the transliteration provided by Ahmet
Ko.61 I have also used the relevant sections of Bursevis Tuhfe-i Ataiyye62 and
Kitabn-Netice63 to elaborate on his conceptualization of sainthood. Other than
these, when necessary I made recourse to compilations of hagiographies and histories
of the period.
I am fully aware that such a focus on narrative sources needs self-reflexivity on
behalf of the author at every level of writing. Since I am interested in the linguistic
expressions of Bursevi, the most useful material for such an analysis remains to be
the texts written by himself. My aim is not to derive absolute historical truths from
these narrative sources but to understand how a Sufi sheikh in the late seventeenth
and early eighteenth centuries made sense of the world around him, related to
political authority and conceptualized it. Although the sources do not portray
objective realities, they still refer to the outer world and are very much shaped by the
historical events taking place in that world. In that respect, the methodological
perspective of this study is to comment on the two-way relationship between

60

hsan Kara, smail Hakk Bursevinin Tuhfe-i Hasekiyyesi (III. Blm) (M.A. thesis,
Marmara niversitesi, 1997); Mehmet Tabakolu,smail Hakk Bursevi'nin Tuhfe-i Hasekiyyesinin
kinci Blm (Metin ve Tahlil) (M.A. thesis, Marmara University, 2008). The manuscript used is
the 1726/1727 copy and is located at Sleymaniye Lib. Mihriah Sultan no. 164 (331 fol.). They also
provide the copy of the original manuscript in Ottoman Turkish at the end of their theses. Henceforth,
the sections in which Kara and Tabakolu transcribed the original work of Bursevi will be referenced
with the name of Bursevi and the text under question instead of the name of the thesis.
61

Ahmet Ko, smail Hakk Bursevi'nin (v. 1137/1725) Tuhfe-i smailiyye Adl Eseri (M.A.
thesis, Yznc Yl University, 2008). The manuscript used is located at Hac Selimaa Lib. Hdayi
Efendi no. 459 (1733). Henceforth, the section in which Ko transcribed the original work of Bursevi
will be referenced with the name of Bursevi and the text under question instead of the name of the
thesis.
62

Veysel Akkaya, smail Hakk Bursevi: Kabe ve nsan, Tuhfe-i Ataiyye (Istanbul: nsan
Yaynlar, 2000).
63

smail Hakk Bursevi, Kitabn-Netice, eds. Ali Naml and mdat Yava, 2 vol. (Istanbul:
nsan Yaynlar, 1997).

28

Bursevis religio-political discourse as expressed in his texts and the historical

realities and other available discourses which this language refer to. As Pocock
argues, political thought does not exist only in relation to historical realities within a
given conjecture but also stems from and responds to the available intellectual
traditions. Thus, it is useful to try to understand not only the intellectual currents but
also the conjectures within which such political expressions are produced.64 In this
thesis, I have tried to adopt such a multi-tiered approach in the analysis of Bursevis
religio-political expressions. The intended audience and contents of the tuhfes along
with the social and political implications of writing these texts in the early eighteenth
century will be provided in the next section dealing with Bursevis life and his
affiliation with political authority figures.
This thesis is formulated around several lines of discussion. In the first chapter
I provide information about Bursevis life and his connection to the Celveti order.
Commenting on his training as a Sufi, I briefly establish the lines of thought which
had an impact on his intellectual world. At the same time, I comment on the sociopolitical conditions of the period in which Bursevi grew up and how these conditions
might have affected him. While writing about his stay in skdar, I comment on the
implications of his writing activities there since most of the texts used for analysis in
this thesis were written during this period.
In the second chapter, by an analysis of Bursevis texts, first of all I explore
how he conceptualized the hierarchical organization of the Ottoman state as a
reflection of cosmic order and defined it in mystical terms. The state although

64

J. G.A. Pocock, Political Thought and History: Essays on Theory and Method, (Cambridge,
UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009).

29

operating within the temporal realm was inevitably linked to the spiritual and was
defined with the duty of maintaining order on earth by virtue of its intricate
relationship to the cosmic order. I also introduce the concept of the Pole as
understood by Bursevi, a position he claimed for himself through auto-hagiography
and exclamations in texts. The focus is on the similar representations of the sultan
and the Pole and their respective governments.
In the third chapter, I turn my gaze to a deconstruction of Bursevis
propositions for the establishment of order, namely restoration of political authority
through an analysis of his advices for the sultan and the statesmen. I delineate his
vision of an ideal form of imperial governance which is first of all a reflection of his
Sufi understanding of balanced self governance. The common themes analysed are
balance, justice, discipline, sultanate as a trust and obedience to authority figures. I
also place Bursevis discussions within wider currents of thought by pointing out
parallel literary conventions, themes and images found in particular traditions and in
the works of his contemporaries.
The fourth chapter aims to clarify Bursevis interpretation of Ottoman decline
by analysing his comments on its reasons. Since Bursevi defined decline, its reasons
and solutions in religious terms, the focus is on his criticism towards jurists,
philosophers, medrese professors and other Sufis which he categorized under ehl-i
inkar (deniers of Sufism) and ehl-i ilhad (deviants). They constituted for him the two
extreme poles in religious interpretation as opposed to the balanced proposition of
the competent Sufi sheikh. In this section I also briefly provide Bursevis criticisms
about the society by putting them in their early eighteenth century context.

30

In the last chapter, I discuss how Bursevi conceptualized the ideal relationship
between the Sufi sheikh and state and legitimized the position of the first vis--vis
the latter. Then I analyse his historical consciousness and perception of a decline in
the relationship between spiritual and political authorities by focusing on the
concrete examples he provided. For him the estrangement of these two forms of
authority and the influence of religious extremities in the social and political spheres
(which are discussed in the previous chapter) were the reasons of disorder in the
Ottoman Empire. This discourse did not only refer to historical transformations in the
affiliation of the sheikh with political authority but it was also a reflection of the
wider trend among coeval Ottoman scholars to comment on an Ottoman decline.

31

CHAPTER II
SMAL HAKKI BURSEV AND THE CELVETYYE ORDER

This chapter provides a biography of smail Hakk Bursevi within the context of the
late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Starting with a brief history of the
Celveti order to which Bursevi belonged to, I try to establish the Sufi tradition within
which he was rooted. Later I examine the aspects of his life and his association with
his master Atpazari Osman Fazl in relation to the wider socio-political environment
of the period. The chapter ends with an introduction of the texts used for analysis in
this thesis and the wider context which made their composition meaningful in the
early eighteenth century. Brief information about their genre, contents, audience and
availability in modern libraries are provided.

The Emergence of the Celvetiyye Order

The process of Celvetiyyes emergence as a separate order starts with Mehmed

Muhyiddin ftade (1490-1580).65 To our knowledge, ftade did not receive a proper
medrese education, and although in hagiographies and biographies he emerges as a

65

For hagiographic and biographic information about ftade see: Baldrzade Selisi eyh
Mehmed, Ravza-i Evliya, eds. Mefail Hzl and Murat Yurtsever (Bursa: Arasta, 2000), pp. 95-103;
Hseyin Vassaf, Sefine-i Evliya vol. 5, eds. Mehmet Akku and Ali Ylmaz (Istanbul: Kitabevi,
2006), pp. 619-629. It should be pointed out that in Hal-i Tarikat, there is already a differentiation
of Celvetiyye from the other orders, particularly the Halveti order, in terms of its practices and
doctrine. For differentiations between the Halvetis and Celvetis by ftade see: Sami Bayrak,
Mehur Osmanl Sufilerinden ftade (1490-1580) ve Hl-i Tarkat simli Eseri (Metin Transkribe ve
Tahlili (M.A. thesis, Seluk University, 2010), p.47-8/ Fol7a-b, p. 54-60/ Fol.13a-Fol.18b, p. 68-9/
Fol.27b, p. 88-9/ Fol.44b-45a.

32

man who studied religious sciences with an imam named Muslihiddin Efendi and
later on with his sheikh Hzr Dede, his educational background remains rather
obscure.66 Bursevi suggested that Hzr Dede received his Sufi training directly from
Hac Bayram Veli, the founder of the Bayramiyye order. However, this seems
impossible because of the time gap between the two.67 It is more convenient to
suggest that ftades sheikh was Akbyk Meczub, a vicegerent of Hac Bayram Veli
who operated in Bursa during the early sixteenth century.68 While the staple of
ftades education under this sheikh is not very clear, Hal-i Tarikat, a selection from
Vakat (Hdayis diaries which contain his conversations with ftade) compiled by
Ebul-Hazan er-Rifai69 in the late eighteenth century, provides a rather limited
representation of his erudition and sharia-consciousness.70
In this text, ftade is reported to have said that the rules of the sharia must be
obeyed by all Sufis. He also advised Sufis to keep their experiences and inspirations

66

In his hagiographies, it is believed that all the knowledge of the sciences was revealed to him
after he studied the Mukaddime by Ebul-Levs with his sheikh. Hsameddin Bursevi, Menakb-
Hazret-i ftade, ed. Abdurrahman Ynal (Bursa: Celvet Yaynlar, 1996), pp. 18-19/ Fol. 22, pp. 2728/ Fol.34-35.
67

lyas Efendi, smail Hakk Bursevinin Ktabs-Silsiletil-Celvetiyyesi (M.A. thesis,

Marmara University, 1994), p. 109 /Fol.60a.
68

For a detailed geneology of the Celvetiyye order, see Seyyid Osman Ustaolu, Tarikatler ve
Silsileleri: Gemiten Gnmze (Ankara: Filiz Matbaaclk, 2002), pp. 302-310. According to the
geneaology provided in this book, Sheikh Mukad Hzr Dede was a disciple not of Akbyk Meczup
but of Sheikh Akemseddin.
69

According to Sami Bayrak who has written a masters thesis on Hal-i Tarikat, there is no
information about Ebul-Hasan er-Rifai, who is the translator-editor of the article, in any of the
Ottoman sources. The only extant copy of the work is in Konya Koyunolu Library, and it dates dates
back to 1211/1796. Bayrakc provides both the photographs of the original copy and the transcription
of the text in his thesis. Bayrak, Mehur Osmanl Sufilerinden.
70

This colossal work is written in Arabic. It should be kept in mind that this was only a
selection hence do not represent a comprehensive and unmediated access to ftades views.

33

as secrets and if they have to speak, then to use the sharia cloth (libas- eriat) to
communicate them.71 The rise of shia-symphatizing ideologies and messianic hopes
among the people in the sixteenth century had posed a political threat for the
Ottoman state vis--vis the Safavids. One of the main targets of disciplinary
measures during this period was some Sufi groups or leaders who made their extreme
interpretations of the vahdet-i vcud doctrine (like hulul and ittihad) available to the
public through a messianic discourse. Those who managed to gain a large following
in an attempt to challenge the authority of the Ottoman state were punished severely.
Under these circumstances, ftades words might be taken as precaution not to be
misunderstood.
In Hal-i Tarikat, ftade said: Halvetis lapse into heresy on account of a
trifle. Those who belong to the Celvetiyye are our community.72 If we are to believe
in the genuinity of ftades words in this edited version of the Vakat, as early as the
time of ftade, Celveti superiority was conceptualized as the supposed conformity of
its methods and practices to sharia. Thus, as a latecomer to the tariqa scene,
Celvetiyyes legitimacy was grounded in the claimed superiority of its methods over
others, particularly the Halvetis, one of the most widespread and popular Sufi orders
of the Ottoman Empire. With ftade, we see the early formation of an emphasis on
sharia-abidance in the Celvetiyye and the impacts of the process of sunnitization on a

71

For examples of ftades sharia-consciousness see: Ibid., p. 58, p.74, p.80, p.87.

72

Halvetiyye azck eyden ilhada derler. Celvetiyye olanlar bizim cemaatimizdir.

Bayrak, Mehur Osmanl Sufilerinden, pp. 88/ Fol.44b-45a

34

newly emerging order.73 In the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, smail
Hakk Bursevi was building on this established Celveti tradition of a shariaconscious Sunni interpretation of Sufism to make his arguments regarding the
significance of combining the sharia and the divine truth (hakikat). For him celvet
was the ultimate station on the mystical path (gayetl-meratib) and it indicated
convocation (davet) and notification (tebli) of the people.74 In fact the same concern
was voiced also by Ibn Arabi: The place of the living saint is among men: and
when he is dead he will continue, through his ruhaniyya or spiritual presence, to
mingle with them and watch over their fate. His true retreat consists in concealing
himself while remaining visible, khalwa fi jalwa.75 Bursevis conceptualization of
celvet as superior from halvet did not imply a poignant differentiation between the
Halveti and Celveti paths though. For him, if a dervish of the Halveti order managed
to reach the secret (srr) of the station of celvet, he would become a Celveti despite
his affiliated order. Similarly if a Celveti remained on the station of halvet, he would
be a Halveti.76 Thus the distinction was more between the spiritual stations of the
Sufis than the orders they were affiliated with. This can be taken as a sign of the
fluidity and versatility of Sufi identities which frequently cross-cut the boundaries of
Sufi orders which were themselves most of the time quite blurry.

73

Terziolu, Sufis in the Age of State-Building.

74

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i smailiyye, p.143/ Fol.13b.

75

Michel Chodkiewicz, Seal of the Saints: Prophethood and Sainthood in the Doctrine of Ibn
Arabi (Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society, 1993), pp. 172-173.
76

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i meriyye, in Tuhfe: Seyr-i Sluk, eds. Mehmet Ali Akidil and eyda
ztrk (Istanbul: nsan Yaynlar, 2000), p.60.

35

It was not ftade but his successor Aziz Mahmud Hdayi who with his vast
networks and alliances turned the rather obscure idea of Celvetiyye into an
institutionalized and influential order. He expanded the operation sphere of the order
from Bursa to Istanbul and to other western Anatolian and Balkan cities. Hdayi sent
the majority of his sixty-six vicegerents to places such as Plovdiv (Filibe), Aitos
(Aydos), Provadia (Pravadi), Adrianople (Edirne), Bosnia (Bosna), Salonica
(Selanik), Belgrade (Belgrad), Bitola (Manastr), etc.77 During this period, the
Ottoman state not only tried to domesticate and sunnitize Sufi orders and the general
public by eliminating public manifestations of beliefs and movements which were
deemed heretical. On the other hand, it helped strengthen the forces within the
society like the Celvetis that had the power, reputation and networks to communicate
with the people the kind of religious beliefs and practices that were being deemed
orthodoxy, hence acceptable in religio-legal terms. Namely the state was in need of
mediators that could negotiate a Sunni orthodoxy that was in the process of
consolidation, with the people. Sufis having extensive ties not only with the
commoners but also with the ulema and statesmen of all sorts were ideal agents for
this purpose since Sufi affiliations cut across class boundaries. Thus in the late
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Sufi sheikhs started to be more visible in the
public sphere as state-appointed mosque preachers, imams and educators. Celvetis

77

For a list of the known representatives of the Celvetiyye in the Balkans see, Taxhidin Bytyqi,
Balkanlarda Celvetilik ve Mnir-i Belgradi, in Aziz Mahmud Hdayi Uluslararas Sempozyum
Bildirileri 20-22 Mays 2005, vol. II (Istanbul: skdar Belediyesi, 2005), pp. 219-238; For a
comprehensive list of Hdayis vicegerents and their places of appointment see Ylmaz, Aziz Mahmud
Hdayi, pp. 130-131; According to this list provided by Hseyin Vassaf, there were also vicegerents
sent to Amasya, Adana, Tokat, Madina and Algeria, but the expansion of the order in the eastern and
southern parts of the empire was rather limited. Vassaf, Sefine-i Evliya, vol. III, pp. 27-28.

36

were one such group who operated as mosque preachers not only in the mosques of
the capital city but also in the provincial towns they operated.78
In the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries it becomes extremely difficult to
establish a precise distinction between the ulema and the Sufis and their respective
cultures as a result of the sunnitization process. There is an increasing affiliation
between the two groups both in terms of education and religious outlook, particularly
in the case of Celvetis as portrayed by the case of Hdayi. He was a college professor
(mderris) and an assistant judge (naib) turned Sufi sheikh. As a multi-faceted
individual, he accommodated many roles of a Sufi sheikh as preacher, educator,
dream interpreter, author and counselor. The kind of double education Hdayi had
continued as a tradition for Celvetis all through the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries, making the Celveti order one of the most educated and literary Sufi orders
of the empire.79 This is not to say that all Celvetis were medrese graduates turned
Sufis like Hdayi although a great number of his vicegerents had some sort of
medrese training before their submission to the Sufi path. During the seventeenth

78

Filibeli smail worked as a preacher at Kkayasofya and Bayezid Mosques. In 1636, he

was appointed to Bykayasofya. Veliyddin Yusuf Efendi was giving sermons in Sultan Selim and
ehzade Mosques. After the construction of Sultanahmet Mosque, Hdayi started to give sermons
there every first Monday of the month; previously he was giving sermons at the Fatih Mosque.
Mahmud Gafuri (1667) served as a preacher at the Zeyrek, Valide-i Atik, Sleymaniye and Fatih
mosques. Abdlhay Efendi was a preacher at Yenicami. Mustafa Fenayi (1711) was the friday
preacher at the ehzade Mosque. Zakirzade Abdullah Efendi (1658) preached at the Fatih Mosque and
also at the ehzade Mosque in skdar on Tuesdays. Osman Fazl served as a preacher at the Kul,
eyh Vefa and Sultan Selim Mosques; See the section on Celveti sheikhs in Vassaf, Sefine-i Evliya,
vol. III.
79

According to a graphic of the eighteenth century regarding the education level of Sufis in
different orders, Celvetiyye stands out as the order with most medrese graduates; it is also the second
(after Naqshbandi order) in literary output. For the table, see, Ramazan Muslu, Osmanl Toplumunda
Tasavvuf (18. Yzyl) (Istanbul: nsan Yaynlar, 2003), pp. 703-750. One has to take into account the
fact that Bursevis enormus corpus consisting of over one hundred and twenty works forms the
majority of Celveti texts.

37

century, Celveti lodges (of which there were around thirty in Istanbul only) as
educational institutions could compete with the medreses in terms of the competence
of their sheikhs as teachers and the level of education provided to disciples.
The strong ties established with the ulema elites and the statesmen during the
time of Hdayi might not have continued with the same intensity after his death but
the changes in the governance of the empire with the expansion of the political
nation indicated a different form of affiliation with political power particularly after
the mid-seventeenth century. Although Bursevis sheikh Atpazari Osman Fazl was
also a very influential man in the palace, with the rise of new agents such as the
Kadzadelis, the sultans preceptor and the palace circle to power, the influence of
Celvetis on the sultan was curbed. However, as the case of smail Hakk Bursevi will
show Celveti influence changed direction in the early eighteenth century from the
sultan to the palace circle and the grand vizier. Indeed during this period, with the
retreat of the sultan to the background, the latter were more influential in directing
state affairs and the political decision-making processes. Still, Hdayis affiliation
with Murad III and particularly close relationship with Ahmed I seem to have left a
deep impact on Bursevis conceptualization of the ideal form of governance since he
perceived a decline in the position of the Sufi sheikh vis--vis the state after the time
of Hdayi as shall be explained in detail in the next chapter.

The Early Life and Education of smail Hakk Bursevi

38

When smail Hakk Bursevi was born in 1653 in Aitos (Aydos, a town on the borders
of todays Bulgaria) Celvetiyye was already established in the Balkan cities as a
sunna-minded sharia-abiding Sufi order. It was under the guidance of one of Atpazari
Osman Fazls vicegerents in Aitos, Sheikh Ahmed Efendi, that Bursevi received his
first training. At the age of eleven, he left for Edirne and studied with another Celveti
sheikh for seven years. According to Ali Namls paraphrasing from the
autobiographical details Bursevi provided in Tamamul-Feyz, here he studied Arabic
grammar (works of Ibnl-Hacib), jurisprudence, theology, Qur'anic exegesis and
even read pamphlets about logic.80 Although his early juristic education seems to
have been based mostly on the works of Hanafi scholars, Bursevi was also
acquainted with the works of Shafi authors. Some of his tuhfes with minimal juristic
commentary reflect his acquaintance with the different schools of law and the respect
he has for their respective founders.81 On jurisprudence, Bursevi studied the Mlteka
el-Ebhur of brahim el-Halebi (d. 1549), an Ottoman Hanafi scholar from Aleppo.
This book was not only taught in the medreses but frequently referred to by Ottoman
jurists and judges in practice.82 On the fundamentals of jurisprudence (usull-fikh)
he read Menarl-Envar of Ibn Melek (d. 1418), an Ottoman jurist who relied mainly

80

Naml, smail Hakk Bursevi, pp. 36-37.

81

The Hanafi School of law was gradually established as the official school of law in the
Ottoman Empire in the sixteenth century parallel to the developments of sunnitization and
confessionalization. Derin Terziolu defines confessionalization as initiatives taken by Ottoman
religious and political authorities to refashion the attitudes and behaviors of the empires Muslim
subjects in conformity with the principles of Sunni Islam. Thus it refers to the establishment of
imperial identities based on religious orthodoxies which are expressed in certain geographical
boundaries. Terziolu, Sufis in the Age of State, p. 1.
82

kr Selim Has, brahim el-Halebi, in Trkiye Diyanet Vakf slam Ansiklopedisi vol. 15,
(Ankara: Trkiye Diyanet Vakf, 1997), pp. 231-232. Henceforth, I will cite this source as TDA.

39

on the Hanafi opinion while providing Shafi and Maliki views on juristic matters as
well.83 This work was a commentary on the work of the Ebul-Berekat en-Nesefi (d.
1310), a scholar from Buhara who compiled the works of classical scholars of Islam,
followed the Hanafi School of law and showed proclivities for Sufism.84
For theology, Bursevi made use of the erhul-Akaid of Sadddin Taftazani (d.
1390), the famous scholar from Horasan. Taftazani was closer to the Ashari School
and criticized some theologians for articulating the teachings of Greek philosophy
rather freely in their works, an approach very similar to that of Bursevi as reflected in
his tuhfes. Although Taftazani was a Sufi sympathizer, he was rather critical towards
the teachings of Ibn Arabi particularly on the issue of the superiority of sainthood to
prophethood.85 The relationship between these two spiritual ranks was frequently
discussed by Bursevi in his tuhfes. From Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, we learn that Bursevi
was also informed about the exegesis of Hamidddin Kirmani who was indeed a
critic of Taftazani.86 In his early education Bursevi relied on the famous Qur'anic

83

Its wide-spread circulation among the Ottomans is proved by the many extant manuscripts
found in the libraries of Turkey. Mustafa Baktr, Ibn Melek, TDA vol. 20 (Ankara: Trkiye Diyanet
Vakf, 1999), pp. 175-176.
84

Murteza Bedir, Ebul-Berekat Nesefi, TDA vol. 32 (Ankara: Trkiye Diyanet Vakf,
2006), pp. 567-568.
85

Despite the fact that he composed commentaries mostly on Hanafi works, Taftazani seems to
have been closer to the Shafii School of law. In matters of theology, he was influenced from the
Ashari School and Fahreddin Razi. He was quite critical of the Islamic scholars such as Ibn Sina,
Farabi, Shreverdi and Badadi who pursued a philosophical approach based on the teachings of the
ancient Greeks. Although he blamed the theologians influenced by the Mutezili School for the
penetration of philosophy into theology, Taftazani condoned the study of philosophy unless it opposed
the teachings of Islam. Bursevis sheikh Atpazari Osman Fazli had written a postscript (haiye) on one
of Taftazanis works on Arabic language, el-Mutavvel which was studied by Bursevi as well. kr
zen, Sadddin Taftazani, TDA vol. 40 (Ankara: Trkiye Diyanet Vakf, 2011), pp. 299-308.
86

smail Hakk Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, in Tuhfe: Seyr-i Sluk, eds. Mehmet Ali
Akidil and eyda ztrk (Istanbul: nsan Yaynlar, 2000) p. 172/ Fol.64b; Two other works of
Quranic exegesis that Bursevi read were the Et-Teysir fit-Tefsir (which he refers to as Tefsir-i

40

exegesis (which is called Envarut-Tenzil) of Beyzavi (d. 1286), a Shafi jurist who is
known to have submitted to the Sufi path in Tabriz after serving as judge for years.
He was famous for combining philosophy with theology.87 However, the most
popular exegesis being taught in the Ottoman medreses was Zemaheris el-Keaf
which Bursevi was also acquainted with as the reference to him in Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye
shows. Similar to Zemaheri, another Hanafi and Mutezili scholar Bursevi studied
was Ebu Yakub Sekkaki (d. 1229). His Miftahul-Ulum was considered a pioneering
study which criticized the tendency to approach Arabic rhetoric solely as a literary
device and aimed to establish it as a science.88
A general look at the works which Bursevi studied reveals a multi-faceted
education in religious sciences based on a variety of sources which reflected the
diverse (and sometimes clashing) approaches of their authors. Thus the horizons of
Bursevis intellectual world were not determined by a single intellectual tradition. It
was richly shaped by the multiple approaches and views expressed by different
scholars coming from various traditions. The majority of these works were studied in
the Ottoman medreses, illustrating the parallels between the educational culture of
the ulema and the Sufis in the late seventeenth century.

Teysir) of Ebu Nasr Abdrrahim Kueyri and the exegesis of Semerkandi-i Haddadi: Ibid, p. 175/
Fol.66a; Another one was the exegesis of Abdullah ibn Abbas: Ibid, p. 161/58b.
87

Beyzavi interpreted the Quranic verses from a philosophical perspective, suggesting that
their meanings were not literal but symbolic. In matters of theology, his views belonged mostly to the
Ashari School and influenced the latter theologians Taftazani and Crcani which also had an affect on
Bursevis intellectual world. Although he submitted to the Sufi path under the guidance of his sheikh
Muhammad al-Kathani, he composed only one work on Sufism. Particularly his exegesis was very
popular among Ottomans and studied widely in Ottoman medreses. Yusuf evki Yavuz, Beyzavi
TDA vol. 6 (Ankara: Trkiye Diyanet Vakf, 1992), pp. 100-103.
88

smail Durmu, Ebu Yakub Sekkaki, TDA vol. 36 (Ankara: Trkiye Diyanet Vakf, 2009),
pp. 332-334.

41

During this period, the political turmoil created by the contention between
different factions within the palace circle such as the royal women and palace aghas
had relatively settled down with the rise of the vizieral family Kprls. In 1651, the
mother of Mehmed IV, Ksem Sultan was killed in the rivalry with the sultans wife
Hatice Turhan Sultan whereas the power of palace aghas was subdued. On the other
hand, the third wave of Kadzadeli initiatives, the puritanical mosque preachers who
wished to eradicate all religious innovations and return back to the time of the
prophet, had gained impetus in the capital city. Madeline Zilfi suggests that
notwithstanding the centrality of the Sufis, the seriousness of the Kadzadeli
challenge owes much to the underlying struggle between Kadzadeli Puritanism and
the pragmatism of ulema decision-makers.89 The followers of Kadzade Mehmed
seems to have remained on the less prestigious periphery of the ulema hierarchy as
mosque preachers, provincial judges or jurisconsults at a time when prevalent
networks of nepotism prevented merit-based ascendency along with the swelling of
the ulema ranks with increasing number of medrese graduates.90 It must have been
even more discouraging to see increasingly more Sufi sheikhs (mostly Halveti and to
a lesser extent Celveti sheikhs) becoming mosque preachers at the expense of other
candidates and gaining the favor of the sultan and prominent statesmen.91 Therefore
the indignation Kadzadelis felt at the face of their limited career opportunities and

89

Zilfi, The Kadzadelis, p. 252.

90

Zilfi, The Politics of Piety.

91

According to Zilfis research, between 1621 and 1685, Sufi sheikhs (mostly the halvetis)
were preferred for the post of the Friday preacher in the imperial mosques of Istanbul (Aya Sofya,
Sultan Ahmed, Sleymaniye, Beyazid and Fatih). Zilfi, The Kadzadelis, p. 267.

42

what they regarded as signs of social and moral decay turned into a dispersed/rather
disorganized attack on Sufis who were enjoying a considerable degree of authority
and influence over both the public and the state.
The grand-vizier Kprlzade Fazl Ahmed Pasha (d. 1676) who virtually held
almost all of the state authority in his hands was personally very fond of the current
leader of the Kadzadelis, Vani Mehmed Efendi. The latter, being also the preceptor
of the sultan had thus gained the favor of the two most important loci of power
(sultan and the grand vizier) as his predecessor. As Sufi dance performances (sema)
were forbidden by 1665, a Bektai lodge near Edirne was abolished and Sufis were
blamed for non-conformism to the rules of the sharia. It is important to see that these
attacks, interventions and restrictions on Sufi practices were not necessarily an
organized disciplinary application of Ottoman imperial policy towards Sufi orders
but rather the consequences of Vani Mehmeds extensive influence in the palace
which provided him with the tools to decide the limits of tolerance and the official
path of the faith.92 These measures can be seen as the manifestation of a
continuation of the rising discourse of sharia-consciousness and Sunna-abidance not
only among Kadzadeli circles but also among Sufi orders like the Celvetiyye: a
discourse that was used to define the limits of acceptable religious and social
behavior. The seventeenth century was neither the beginning nor the denouement of
this puritanical discourse (which makes sense only under the light of the bigger
framework of confessionalization and sunnitization) which found a mouthpiece in

92

Ibid., p. 263-4.

43

the person of smail Hakk Bursevi in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth
centuries.
By the time smail Hakk Bursevi arrived in Osman Fazlis lodge in Fatih,
Istanbul as a young disciple in 1672, Vani was thus still famous in Istanbul as a
preacher. Muhammed Bedirhan relies on Bursevis Tamamul-Feyz (written in
Arabic) for the details of Osman Fazlis life and suggests that at this period, the fact
that Osman Fazl was studying Ibn Arabis works (probably Fsusul-Hikem) with
his disciples frequently caused discontent among the religious milieus.93 Most likely
this was a reflection of the fervent discussions churning the mosques of the capital
city under the leadership of the Kadzadelis who denied Ibn Arabis teachings,
particularly the vahdet-i vcud doctrine. In Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, Bursevi mentions an
inspiration (varid) that his sheikh received during this period: Follow the path of
your ancestors. It is the path of secrecy. After these events, Osman Fazl seems to
have focused more on the teaching of religious sciences, writing commentaries on
works such as Taftazanis el-Mutavvel (on rhetoric) which Bursevi studied as well.94
Furthermore, according to Tamamul-Feyz, Osman Fazl was even the subject
of complaint to the eyhlislam Minkarizade Yahya Efendi for teaching Ibn Arabi
and was invited to his office to be tested. Refusing the invitation of the grand mufti,
Osman Fazl later wrote a letter with an inspiration adorned by the verses from the
Quran to the grand vizier Kprl Ahmed Paa instead. In return Bursevi claimed

93

Muhammed Bedirhan, Osman Fazl Atpazar: Hayat-Eserleri ve Tasavvuf Grleri

(M.A. thesis, Marmara University, 2006), p. 13.
94

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p. 164/ Fol.60b; Naml, smail Hakk Bursevi, p. 38.

44

that the grand vizier enjoyed his commentary and even rewarded his master.95 The
grand vizier seems to have pursued a politics of balance between the Sufi sheikhs
and those who attacked them by virtue of the influence both parties had in the society
and among the ruling elites.
Whether the information provided by Bursevi is true or not, it appears that after
this meeting Osman Fazl Atpazari gained a more prominent place among the
political authority figures which would continue well until his criticisms regarding
the campaigns against Austria first in 1683 and then in 1689.96 Although the details
of Osman Fazls relationship with the vizieral Kprl family and Mehmed IV
remain to be researched, even a broad look at his life reveals the influence he
enjoyed among political authority figures and the changing patterns of association
with them. In the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, one of the factors
that had a great impact on Hdayis acquisition of power in the political milieu was
his close relationship with the family of the grand mufti Hocasadeddin. However, in
the late seventeenth century Osman Fazl was interacting more with the members of
the vizieral Kprl family who virtually held all power to rule in their hands. These
changing patterns of association reflected not only the gradual waning of the office
of the grand mufti (except for Feyzullah Efendi) with the rise of the grand vizier and
bureaucracy in the seventeenth century but illustrated also how Sufi sheikhs were
accordingly articulated into them.

95

Bedirhan, Osman Fazl Atpazari, p. 14.

96

Bedrettin etiner, Atpazar Osman Fazl ve el-Laihatl-Berkiyyt adl Tasavvuf Tefsir

Risalesi, Marmara niversitesi lahiyat Fakltesi Dergisi, no. 16-17 (1998-1999), p. 33.

45

For three years in Istanbul, Bursevi continued his education in religious

sciences reading Hseyin el-Kaifis Quranic exegesis and Sadr-eria
Ubeydullah b. Mesuds (d.1632) book on usull-fkh, et-Tenkihul-Usul. The
choice of Sadr-eria is rather ironic because this scholar was known for his
criticisms towards Ibn Arabi, particularly his vahdet-i vcud doctrine and claims
about the relationship between sainthood and prophethood.97 Osman Fazls decision
to write a commentary on this work (along with el-Mutavvel) could be another sign
of his attempts to cloak his Sufi identity and affinity with Ibn Arabis teachings. In
any way, Bursevis sheikh paid special attention to provide his disciples with an
education equivalent to that provided in the medreses before they submitted to the
Sufi path to esoteric knowledge. Osman Fazl would not approve any Sufis as his
vicegerents if they were not well-versed in religious sciences first; a tradition passed
on from Hdayi. During his stay in Istanbul, Bursevi also studied Persian, poetry (of
Hafz, Mevlana, irazi, Mevlana Cami, Ibn Kemal, etc.) and improved his skills in
calligraphy.98 After three years of education, he entered into seclusion (halvet) for
ninety days, a practice that was still revered by the Celvetis as a disciplinary method
for the taming of the ego and as a stepping stone for the higher rank of celvet.
After he came out of seclusion, Bursevi was sent to Skopje as a newly made
vicegerent and resided in several other Balkan cities until 1685 when he was

97

kr zen, Sadr-eria, TDA vol. 35 (Ankara: Trkiye Diyanet Vakf, 2008), pp. 427431; Naml, smail Hakk Bursevi, p. 38.
98

For a more comprehensive list about the books Bursevi studied see: Naml, smail Hakk
Bursevi, pp. 38-39.

46

appointed to Bursa.99 Thus Bursevi had witnessed the last stage of the Kadzadeli
contention even if for a short period of time. It is difficult to guess how much
influence the religious discussions taking place in the public, particularly the
teachings and sermons of Vani Mehmed had on Bursevi as a young man during the
three years he spent in vicinity to the protagonists of the movement. He spent the
subsequent ten years in the Balkan provinces away from the locus of direct
interaction, and when he came back to Istanbul in 1686 to visit his sheikh, Vani
Mehmed had already died in exile.

The Period of Vicegerency

Bursevi arrived in Skopje in 1675 and continued the (by then established) Sufi
tradition of preaching and teaching at various mosques. Here, he seems to have
committed himself strictly to commanding right and forbidding wrong (emr bilmaruf nefy anil-mnker) in his sermons much like the Kadzadelis. Sufi sheikhs as
preachers shared not only the pulpit but also a widespread discourse of Sunna
abidance and religious revivalism with the Kadzadelis. Derin Terziolu states that a
pronounced emphasis on adherence to the Sunna and a puritanical outlook on
Ottoman social and cultural life united the reform visions of both groups.100 In one
of his letters sent to the sultan, Hdayi was also making a claim that would be
repeated all throughout the seventeenth century not only by Kadzadelis but also

99

Ibid, p. 113.
Terziolu, Sunna-Minded Sufi Preachers.

100

47

Celvetis like smail Hakk Bursevi: The wish of God and the ultimate aim of the
prophet is the practice of justice by nullifying oppression and the revival of sunna by
destroying innovations and the establishment of the provisions of sharia by the
removal of the provision of nature as much as possible.101
In this framework, the stern criticisms Bursevi directed towards the local
religious leaders such as the mufti, judge, imams and even sheikhs in Skopje was the
transformation of this discourse of piety to manifest action. According to TamamulFeyz, it seems to have made him quite an unpopular man in Skopje, judging by the
fact that Osman Fazl was forced to remove him to Titov Veles (Kprl) when the
events got out of control after Bursevi punished one of his students with bastinado
for reasons that remain unclear. After this, Bursevi claims that the discontented
locals reported him first to the local judge and mufti, then to the authorities in
Istanbul.102 It is interesting to see that in the Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, Bursevi exaggerated
the event and claimed that the local elites of the city whom he regarded as hypocrites
(mnafk) had filed a complaint against him to the sultan and even wished that he be
persecuted. Without providing further details, in this narrative Bursevi settled the
issue by saying that being the righteous person he is (the influence of his pen name
Hakk) he used to exacerbate peoples anger towards him by being too frank about
their erroneous deeds.103

101

Hakk Celle ve Alann murad ve Rasul-i Ekrem aksa-y maksudu zulmetler ref olunup
adiller icra olunmas ve bidatler ref olunup snnet ihya olunmas ve hkm-i tabiat mehma-emken
izale oluup ahkam-i eriat istimal olunmasdr. Hdayi, Mektuplar, p. 53/ Fol.47a.
102

Naml, smail Hakk Bursevi, pp. 43-45.

103

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, p. 289/ Fol. 35b.

48

After that we see both Bursevi and his sheikh seeking intercession from
powerful figures to solve the problem: Whereas smail Hakk Bursevi met the grand
mufti eyhzade Ali Efendi, his sheikh sent a letter to the grand vizier Kara Mustafa
Paa to ask for help. Indeed this is another reflection of the changing patterns of
affiliation with political authority figures in the late seventeenth century since by
then it was not the sultan but the grand vizier and the grand mufti who virtually
controlled the state affairs. According to Naml, Bursevis criticisms were mostly
about peoples disobedience to the rules of the sharia and disregard for religious
morality as exemplified by the Sunna of the prophet.104 These criticisms are indeed
very similar to the generic ones he presented in Tuhfe-i smailiyye which he
composed approximately forty five years later, pointing out the continuities in his
definition of religious orthodoxy and orthopraxy. There is an underlying message in
the way Bursevi ended his Skopje episode in Tuhfe-i Recebiyye that he positioned
himself as one of the friends of God for whom divine justice always prevailed. In the
end the people of Skopje were punished for their mistreatment of a friend of God,
Bursevi, when the occupiers (Hungarians) destroyed the city in 1689 and killed many
locals.105 This quote from Kitabn-Netice is telling about his attitude regarding the
dangers of attacking saints: Come now, if you are wise, do not attack the sultan,
otherwise you will be attacking the poles. And attacking the poles is like attacking

104

Naml, smail Hakk Bursevi, pp. 44-45.

105

Ibid., p. 42.

49

God. And God is overpowering and punishing. So none of those who have attacked
the poles and the men of God with malice have recovered.106
Around this time in the capital city, the Celveti sheikh Selami Ali Efendi was
removed from the Hdayi lodge allegedly with an imperial order issued by the sultan
Mehmed IV (and influenced by Vani Efendi) on account of gossips, although the
contents of the accusations are not known. Selami Ali Efendi had served as judge and
later on as the mufti of stanky before entering the Sufi path under the guidance of
Zakirzade Abdullah Efendi. This is not surprising since the Celvetiyye had been very
popular among the ulema circles since the time of Hdayi. After his vicegerency in
Bursa, he succeeded Devatizade eyh Mehmed Talib at the Hdayi Lodge in 1679.
Hseyin Vassaf suggests that in 1681, the Celveti sheikh was having troubles both
with the preceptor of the sultan, Vani Efendi and with Niyazi Msri, the controversial
Halveti sheikh who would also be criticized by Bursevi for his Risale-i Hasaneyn
in which he enounced the prophecy of Hasan and Hseyin. According to Vassaf, it
was possible for Selami Ali to return to office only after Vani Efendi was exiled in
1684.107 Although Hseyin Vassafs narrative seems plausible, there is no clear proof
that supports the validity of these arguments: the details of Selami Alis discussions
with Niyazi Msri (who was indeed in exile at the time) and Vani Efendi and his
official removal from the lodge remain unknown for the present. However, the

106

Gel imdi arif isen sultan zerine huruc etme, ve illa kutub zerine huruc etmi olursun. Ve
kutub zerine huruc etmek Hak zerine huruc gibidir. Ve Hak Kahhar ve Mntakimdir. Onun iin
aktab ve ricale su ile taarruz edenlerden hi biri felah bulmamtr. Bursevi, Kitabn-Netice vol. I,
p. 429.
107

Mustafa Tatc, M. Ceml ztrk, and Taxhiddin Bytyqi, eds., Selami Ali Efendi: Hayat,
Tarikat-nmesi ve Vakfyesi (stanbul: Kakns Yaynlar, 2006); p. 18-21.

50

religious discussions surrounding the mosque preachers of the period seem to have
shaken the standing of the Celveti sheikhs at the time since subsequent two Celveti
sheikhs, Basral Halil and Mustafa Erzincani were also removed from the Hdayi
lodge. The first one was exiled to Egypt while the latter returned back to the lodge in
1705/1706.
Between 1681 and 1685, Bursevi was well received by the locals in Titov
Veles and later Strumica (Ustrumca). He even claimed to have received an offer for
the position of the mufti, which he rejected on account of his sheikhs cautions: Sufi
sheikhs should not become muftis, for it could lead to an obsession with worldly
power.108 During this period, he also wrote a commentary on Takprizades
Adabl-bahs and claimed that this was a book which was well received among the
intellectual circles in Istanbul and Bursa. In 1684, he went to visit his sheikh Osman
Fazl in Edirne who was present at the court of Mehmed IV for counseling.109
Osman Fazl is indeed one of the very intriguing and much neglected figures of the
Celveti order; particularly his relationship with the political authority figures of his
time awaits critical attention. Since it transcends the scope of this chapter I will

108

Naml, smail Hakk Bursevi, pp. 47-48; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, pp. 65-66; Bursevi,
Kitabn-Netice, vol. I, p. 235. In Kitabn-Netice, Bursevi suggests that the offer for the position of
mufti was made to him in Skopje, but according to Ali Namls extensive investigation of the sources
regarding Bursevis life, the offer is most likely made during his stay in Titov Veles; eyhler mfti
olmazlar. Ibid.
109

The court was moved to Edirne in 1656 during the reign of Mehmed IV. Sleyman II,
Ahmed II and Mustafa II had all been enthroned in Edirne. It was only after the 1703 uprising that the
court made a total return to Istanbul. Indeed, it has been claimed that one of the reasons for this
uprising was the rumors about Edirne becoming the new capital. Tlay Artan reads the residing of the
court in Edirne throughout the second half of the seventeenth century as the courts search for
legitimacy vis--vis other groups of power such as the janissaries and the viziers in Istanbul. Tlay
Artan, XVII. Yzyln kinci Yarsnda Edirne Bakent miydi? Osmanl Bankas Mzesi Voyvoda
Caddesi Toplantlar Metinleri, http://www.obmuze.com/volvotop07.asp, 26 Sept. 2011.

51

provide only brief information about the operation of this figure.110 Bursevi reports
that he accompanied his sheikh to the palace during some of these counsel meetings
which ended with dhikr rituals. According to him, during these meetings, Osman
Fazl was rather critical about the Ottoman stance towards engaging in war with
Europe which indeed earned him unpopularity among the palace circle, particularly
the grand vizier Kara Kethda brahim Paa.111 It is highly probable that Bursevi
made some acquaintances within the palace circle during these visits and some of
those might have been the very people for whom he composed his tuhfes during his
stay in skdar near the end of his life. 112
In Edirne, Bursevi also read his sheikhs interpretation of Miftahl-gayb by
Konevi, one of the significant figures of the Ibn Arabi school who was very famous
among Ottoman Sufis. Furthermore, he studied Ibn Arabis Fsusul-Hikem on
which he would write a commentary later on. Celvetis were staunch followers and
supporters of Ibn Arabi starting with ftade in the sixteenth century. In his Divan,
ftade paid heed not to transgress the acceptable limits of the mystical expression of
the vahdet-i vcud doctrine as defined by sharia. He did not use any phrases that
would lead to his enunciation as a heretic and reflected more an ascetic vision based

110

Tamaml-Feyz which consists of Bursevis daily notes and conversations with this sheikh
along with his biography will provide much information about the life Osman Fazl and his influence
in politics when translated from Arabic.
111

etiner, Atpazar Osman Fazl, p. 34.

112

Ibid. pp. 47-51.

52

on piety. 113 The effort on Celvetis behalf to bring the vahdet-i vcud doctrine closer
to Sunni Islam and determine its borders with pantheism which they defined as
heresy continued after him and is evident in the writings of Bursevi as well.
During the period he spent in the Balkans, the Ottomans were engaged in the
war with the Habsburgs, and when the defeat arrived in 1683 the grand vizier of the
time Kara Mustafa Pasha was persecuted. We learn from Bursevis account that
Osman Fazl had indeed warned the grand vizier about the perils of engaging in this
war but supposedly the latter did not lend an ear to the counsels of the sheikh.114 A
similar encounter would take place between smail Hakk Bursevi and the grand
vizier orlulu Ali Paa in the early eighteenth century after which the latter would be
persecuted for his aggressive attitude towards the war with Russia.
In 1685, Bursevi arrived in Bursa and continued his preaching activities. He
later on compiled the sermons he gave in the Ulu Mosque into a mystical
interpretation of the Quran and titled it Ruhl-Beyan. During his stay in Bursa,
Bursevi visited his sheikh in Istanbul five times and preserved his contacts in the
capital city. One of his visits took place several months before the deposition of
Mehmed IV and the enthronement of Sleyman II in 1687. However the
dethronement did not calm down the angry mob of soldiers whose salaries were

113

For ftades interpretation of vahdet-i vcud see his Divan. In his letters Hdayi claims that
he found Ibn Arabis Anka-i Murib ve ems-i Marib among the books belonging to his deceased
sheikh however this could also indicate Nurettinzade Efendi, his previous sheikh who was a Halveti.
114

etiner, Atpazar Osman Fazl, p. 33. It is worth noting that the devastation that the
campaign caused in the Ottoman economy was not insignificant. For brief discussion of the result of
the heavy conscription by Kara Mustafa, see Stanford Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and
Modern Turkey vol. I Empire of the Gazis (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1976), pp.
218-9.

53

unpaid. Accordingly, in Tamamul-Feyz Bursevi stated that Osman Fazl was the
principal mediator between the mob and the sultan in the event recalled as Zorbalar
Vakas. Even though his influence among the state officials and the sultan in the first
place may be regarded with suspicion, Uzunarl acknowledges that Osman Fazl
made a speech in which he conveyed the notification of the sultan at a tower
addressing the mob. He was indeed one of those who dared to give the banner of the
prophet Muhammad to the people in front of the palace.115
In another instance in one of his sermons, Osman Fazl defended the cause of
Suleyman II in fighting against the Habsburgs. Regarding Belgrade as the gate of
Istanbul, Osman Fazl agitated for the sultans cause.116 However he withdrew
support from state policies regarding the extra taxes to be levied from the populace,
and suggested that both soldiers and state officials attend the war themselves. Indeed
his militant stance on the issue was furthered when he joined the army himself. In the
end his critical attitude led to his exile in Magosa in 1690 with an order issued by the
grand vizier.117 Here we see Osman Fazl as an active agent in political discussions
and favoring a militant stance in foreign policy much like Hdayi (who frequently

115

According to Bursevi, the sultan asked Osman Fazl how to eliminate the rebellious despots;
and Fazl, in return, suggested to gather under the prophets banner after the sultan issued a decree.
Bedirhan, Osman Fazl Atpazar, p. 24-5; smail Hakk Uzunarl, Osmanl Tarihi vol. III pt. I
(Ankara: Trk Tarih Kurumu, 1951), p. 521.
116

The infidels have come near your gates. They invade villages; as they seize the lands of
Muslims in such a way and capture those gates, what are you doing? Wake up and donate one third of
your wealth for the help of the mujahid gazis. Those who are not able to do so [should] pray God in a
sincere way for them. Giving away wealth is one of two lesser evils. Detachment of Muslims from
their homelands, however, is the most striking evil of these two evils. In that case, it is necessary to
accept the lesser evil. Bedirhan, Osman Fazl Atpazar, p. 28.
117

Uzunarl, Osmanl Tarihi III:1, p. 533; etiner, Atpazar Osman Fazl, p. 37; Naml,
smail Hakk Bursevi, 59-60.

54

supported the war with the Safavids in his letters to Murad III) although his counsels
were not acted upon. This is the kind of militant and non-conformist stance that one
cannot find in Bursevi. One of the reasons might have been the acceptance of the
European military superiority after the Treaty of Karlowitz and the coming of a
period of relative peace at the beginning of the eighteenth century. Another one is
surely the impact his sheikhs exile left on Bursevi as a disciple. As we shall see in
the subsequent chapters, Bursevi legitimized war in his writings, but he did not
necessarily focus on militancy in foreign policy but rather in the disciplining of the
society but all within a discourse of conformity.

Bursevi Operating as the Sufi Sheikh

After the death of Osman Fazl, Bursevi attended the two campaigns against Austria
(1695 and 1696) upon the request of the grand vizier to provide spiritual support for
the army. Both of these campaigns resulted in defeats and in growing disenchantment
with Ottoman military power. Many contemporaries regarded this as one of the
signs of decline. As the Treaty of Karlowitz was signed in 1699, Bursevi set off on
pilgrimage and returned to Bursa in 1703.118 It is interesting to see in the writings of
Bursevi that the dispersed militant attacks on Sufi practices were not limited to the
capital city in the seventeenth century but had also repercussions in Bursa at the
beginning of the eighteenth. Bursevi speaks of a man with an anti-Sufi agenda (in
his words) preaching in the Ulu Mosque and causing dissent among the public

118

Naml, smail Hakk Bursevi, pp. 73-79.

55

leading some of his followers to violent acts. A Sufi was killed while others were
injured for attending the communal prayer during the night of Kadir: a traditional
practice among the Sufis which was criticized by religious scholars for centuries.119
It may be presumed that the seventeenth century religious discussions in Istanbul had
already spread to different regions, but particularly after the leaders of the
Kadzadelis were dispelled, they might have become more visible in other places. In
1711 one comes across a similar attack at a group of dervishes in Cairo by some
religious students who based their ideas on the teachings of Birgivi just like the
Kadzadelis. Although Rudolph Peters analyses this attack within the framework of
eighteenth century fundamentalist reform (one of the bold propositions of neoSufism arguments), centuries are just a matter of periodization. There is no rationale
in separating the seventeenth century publicization of the discourse of piety from the
continuing discussions in the eighteenth: the roots of such attacks were already laid
within the previous centuries.120
The early eighteenth century was marked by the event called the Edirne
Incident which ended up with the deposition of Mustafa II and the enthronement of
Ahmed III while the grand mufti Feyzullah Efendi was persecuted at the hands of the
people. While the details of this event and Bursevis approach to the grand mufti will
be mentioned later on, let it suffice to say that one of the most important reasons for
the manifestation of this rebellion was the extensive influence of the grand mufti in

119

The night of Kadir was believed by Muslims to be the night when the prophet Mohammed
received the Quran by divine inspiration; Naml, smail Hakk Bursevi, pp. 79-81.
120

See Rudolph Peters, The Battered Dervishes of Bab-Zuwayla: A Religious Riot in

Eighteenth Century Cairo, in Eighteenth-Century Renewal and Reform in Islam, ed. Nehemia
Levtzion and John O. Voll (Syracuse: Syracuse Univ. Press, 1987), pp. 93-115.

56

state affairs. He not only monopolized the highest offices in the ulema hierarchy but
also had gained the power to dismiss and appoint grand viziers.121 During this event,
Bursevi was residing in Bursa and must have received the news about the events
indirectly.
In 1708, Bursevi composed his Tuhfe-i Aliyye for the grand vizier orlulu Ali
Paa and in 1710, before he left for pilgrimage he responded to the invitation of the
grand vizier to counsel him. Bursevis advice indicated the significance of piety and
religious morality for statesmen.122 Indeed as shall be seen in subsequent chapters,
this reliance on a discourse of piety formed the basis of a majority of his counsels for
political authority figures. While the initial encounter between the two is unknown, it
is also probable that Bursevi initiated the affiliation by composing the advice book
for him.
Bursevis next destination was Damascus where he stayed between 1717 and
1720, forming networks with local religious scholars and particularly affiliating with
the governor Receb Paa for whom he wrote Tuhfe-i Recebiyye. In his writings,
Bursevi suggested that he reached the rank of Polehood in Damascus, a concept
which he adopted from Ibn Arabi and elaborated in all his writings.123 The concept
of the pole is essential for understanding Bursevis approach to politics since the
sultan and the pole were virtually the two sides of a coin and the maintenance of

121

For the most detailed argument about this event see: Rifaat Abou El-Haj, The 1703
Rebellion and the Structure of Ottoman Politics (Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch
Instituut te stanbul, 1984).
122

Naml, smail Hakk Bursevi, pp. 90-91.

123

Ibid., pp. 100-103.

57

order in the empire depended on their mutual respect for one another. Thus, while in
Bursevis elaboration, the concept did not defy the authority of the sultan or any
other statesmen, it indeed claimed a considerable degree of power. The sultan was
bound to the pole in all his actions even if he was not aware of it: the role of the Sufi
sheikh was to awaken the sultan to this fact. Bursevis conceptualization of the pole
and definition of his roles in his tuhfes shall be handled together with his frank
claims to the position. That way, we can see how his adoption of identification with
this notion helped him situate himself vis--vis political authority.
The period between 1720 and 1723, Bursevi spent in skdar where he
composed most of his tuhfes and received gifts from the grand vizier Damad Ibrahim
Paa. It seems likely that Bursevi, after reaching Polehood as exclaimed in his texts
in Damascus, decided to come to Istanbul to share his knowledge.124 Therefore his
extensive writing activities and willingness to communicate with a wider range of
people through tuhfes might have been a consequence of his acquisition of the office
of Polehood. His decision to stay particularly in skdar must have been shaped by a
wish to be in the vicinity of the Hdayi lodge or maybe even be appointed as its next
sheikh. According to Naml, Bursevi criticized the current sheikh of the Hdayi
lodge for his incompetency. 125 If this is true, then we can suggest that Bursevi indeed
wanted to establish himself in the capital city for the rest of his life. However this
wish was not granted and he had to return to Bursa where he died in 1725. And even
his three years of stay in skdar was not without trouble. Bursevi claims to have

124

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p. 49/ Fol. 52a.

125

Naml, smail Hakk Bursevi, p. 104-107.

58

been criticized by the grand mufti of the time for exclaiming There is no god but
me (La ilahe illa ene).126 Indeed in Tuhfe-i meriyye, one of the texts he composed
in skdar, Bursevi tries to explain the station of Enel-Hakk and why it is forbidden
to make such exclamations in the public.127 Bursevi might have made recourse to
writing in order to counter the claims of his attackers and defend his position. What
follows before we continue with an analysis of Bursevis texts is a general overview
of the tuhfes used for analysis, their audience, contents and the implications of his
writing activities in the larger context of the eighteenth century realities.

Introducing smail Hakk Bursevis Tuhfes: Language, Purposes, Audience

What singles out smail Hakk Bursevi not only from the Sufi authors within the
Celveti literary tradition but also from many other contemporary religious scholars is
his prolific literary composition.128 Having composed more than approximately one
hundred and twenty works during a lifespan of seventy-two years (1653-1725),
Bursevi helped the expansion of the literary culture of the Celvetiyye by producing

126

Ibid.

127

He claimed that God could only be known through his manifestations on earth in a relative
(nisbi) manner, not in totality (klli). Enel-Hakk was the station in which the ego (nefs) was dissolved
to the extent that Gods names and attributes were disclosed perfectly in a person. Hence it did not
imply a total knowledge or emulation of God. It was neither necessary nor legitimate to make outward
claims this station since people could misunderstand it. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i meriyye, pp. 54-57.
128

It is interesting to come across another famous religious scholar of the time, Abdlgani
Nablusi (1641-1731), a Damascene Sufi having affiliations with the Naqshbandi, Mevlevi and Kadiri
orders, whose literary heritage emulates and even outmatches that of Bursevi. For more information
on Nablusi see: Elizabeth Sirriyeh, Sufi Visionary of Ottoman Damascus: Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulusi,
1641-1731 (London; New York: Routledge Curzon, 2005); Bekri Alaaddin and Veysel Uysal,
Abdlgani Nablusi: Hayat ve Fikirleri (stanbul: nsan Yaynlar, 1995).

59

works in diverse spheres. He also helped the dissemination of this literary production
to different segments of the society by establishing networks of patronage and
providing books as gifts to people from various walks of life.129 Therefore, Bursevi
provided the Celvetiyye order with an unmatched cultural capital that served to
formulate, explicate, legitimize and most importantly spread his vision with regard to
Islam, Sufism, morality, politics, society and cosmology.
Bursevis works can be categorized within the generic spheres of Sufism,
jurisprudence, theology, hadith, Qur'anic exegesis, poetry and hymns. However, a
simple categorization of his literary output as such might limit the vision of
intellectual historians as to what to expect from these texts. For example the contents
of Bursevis tuhfes, books that were written as gifts to particular people, were not
only about Sufism or religious matters per se but they also covered a wide range of
topics such as the personal life of the author and his comments on politics, the social
order and contemporary issues which may help the historian catch a glimpse of how
Bursevi envisioned the world around him and his place in it.
In this section, six of Bursevis tuhfes,130 which were all written in the first
quarter of the eighteenth century, will be briefly introduced, and the context within
which they were composed will be analyzed to shed light on several questions: What
did Bursevis extensive writing activities and provision of books as gifts indicate in

129

For a comprehensive list of smail Hakk Bursevis literary works, their short descriptions,
the libraries in which they are located and if available, their modern publications see: Naml, smail
Hakk Bursevi, pp. 161-219.
130

The current authors reason for choosing particularly these six tuhfes are determined both by
their availability in Latin transcription and the fact that they addressed a wide range of people (not
only high-ranking statesmen such as the grand vizier and the governor of Damascus but members of
the palace staff and a janissary soldier).

60

the context of eighteenth century Ottoman realities? What were the social and
political implications of both the act of writing and the contents of these texts? What
were the changing patterns of power relations; how could a Sufi sheikh relate with
different loci of political and material power in the early eighteenth century?
In Ottoman Turkish, tuhfe means gift; as a literary genre, it is difficult to define
it since tuhfes were not necessarily written in any particular way or topic. The only
characteristic that all tuhfes shared was that they addressed particular individuals and
were presented as gifts to them. In the sixteenth century, authors composing tuhfes
addressed mostly the sultan, the princes and at times high ranking statesmen (viziers,
governors, high status bureaucrats). These were not necessarily advice books per se;
they could be about other topics such as history or poetry. Still, many authors
preferred to compose advice books as gifts to benefit from the gift-reward system
within the networks of patronage which revolved mainly around statesmen and
authors from varying backgrounds at the time. According to Hseyin Ylmaz, gifts
presented to men of high stature in the form of written works were handsomely
rewarded by the recipient. This was a culture in which, histories, poems and legends
praised statesmens protection and care of literati, with special veneration.131 One of
the most significant qualities of an ideal ruler or statesman was to be a patron of
religious scholars and to ask for their advice when needed, be it on political or
religious issues. Since it was quite difficult for the majority of statesmen to fully
indulge in texts laden with the specialized vocabulary of Sufism and religious
sciences and profound intellectual discussions, tuhfe authors preferred to refer to

131

Ylmaz, Sultan and the Sultanate, p. 132-3.

61

stories, parables, illustrative metaphors and poetry to render their words

commensurable to their intended audience.
smail Hakk Bursevis tuhfes carried a similar sensibility for
comprehensibility not only by the rulers or the high ranking statesmen as in the
sixteenth century but by a broader group of people to which the texts were directed.
Bursevi composed a total of fourteen tuhfes whose various recipients were as diverse
as his son, his brother, a fellow dervish, a sheikh, a janissary soldier, the enderun
agha, the chief haseki (ser-haseki), the inspector of imperial gardens (hasbaheler
mfettii), the governor of Damascus and the grand vizier.132 Although the language
of composition was adjusted according to the perceived scholarly and linguistic
capabilities of the intended audience, all of the works were written in Turkish. In his
tuhfes, Bursevi explicitly claimed his purpose to write the texts in simple Turkish to
increase readability.133 Being wordy and using a pompous language overburdened
the mind and made it difficult for the reader to understand the essentials of the text:
According to him such texts were tasteless whereas their writers were sinners.134 For
example, in his own words, Tuhfe-i smailiyye was composed with simple
expressions that were close to the diction of public comprehension.135 Particularly in
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, it was more common among Ottoman

132

For a list of smail Hakk Bursevis tuhfes, see: Naml, smail Hakk Bursevi, p. 217.

133

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye, p.198/ Fol.1b.

134

Ve esna-i takrirde okluk tekellf ve ahz-i tarik- teassf olunmadugunun srr vazh ve
illeti ruendir. Zira tekellf ile olan kelam bi-meze ve belki sahibi bezekar olur, zira mteeddikdr.
Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, p. 210/ Fol. 3a.
135

takrirat- fehm-i avama akreb olan ibarat- sehle ile vcud buldu. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i
smailiyye, p. 123/ Fol. 1b-2a.

62

authors to experiment with the Turkish language to claim it as suitable for literary
elegance and educated Islamic discourse as Arabic and Persian.136 To illustrate the
virtue of Turkish Bursevi claimed it to be one of the languages in which an angel
spoke to Adam to make him descend to earth: it was only when the angel told him to
get up in Turkish that Adam made sense of his words and was mobilized. This claim
not only provided Turkish the sacral and mystical background it lacked but also
made reference to its simplicity.137
Bursevi believed in the continuous significance of textual material in the
education of people for years to come and hence paid special heed to lay down all of
his thoughts and experiences on paper and to do it in such a way that more people
could have access to them:
It is sufficient for peoples hands to have no other perfection than that of
writing down knowledge and the Quran. And all these works last for
ages. People read, and benefit from them and pray for the authors
souls.138
Even if no one benefited from them, Bursevi believed that the authors of such texts
would still be rewarded by God for engaging in this act.139 Bursevis tuhfes were first
of all educational tracts which aimed not only to inform the reader about the basic
tenets of Celveti Sufism but also to offer a roadmap to live ones life within the

136

Howard, Genre and Myth, p. 150; Emine Fatma Fetvac, Viziers to Eunuchs: Transitions
in Ottoman Manuscript Patronage, 1566-1617 (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 2005), p.22, p. 264.
137

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, II, p. 124 /Fol.152a.

138

nsann ellerinin bil-farz Kuran ve ilim yazmaktan gayri kemali olmasa dahi ona kafidir.
Zira bu kadar asar, dhur-i mtetavile kalr. Nazar edenler, onunla mntefi olurlar, sebeb-i dua olur.
Bu cihetten Hac smailin iltimasna msaade olunup bu Tuhfe kaleme geldi. Zira eer kendi ve eer
beldesi olan Lefke ehli, ilmi ve ameli severler. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i, smailiyye, p. 170/ Fol. 27a.
139

Say iradnn eseri zuhur etmeyip, kimse onun davetini kabul klmad surette dahi
kendine ecir vardr. Ibid., p. 143 /Fol.13a.

63

acceptable limits of sunna and sharia as a responsible member of the community.

Through these texts Bursevi partook in the consolidation of orthodoxy and
orthopraxy and regarded it as his responsibility to provide religious education to
more people as a response to what he conceived as decline in all aspects of society
due to impiety.
In the seventeenth century, many Sufi sheikhs and in a similar fashion the
Kadzadelis were using the pulpit to transmit their views regarding religion to the
general public within a discourse of commanding right and forbidding wrong.140 This
was as much a performance of negotiation of power as a conscious struggle to
respond to the transformations in the society. Bursevi pointed out that just as the
prophets were responsible for inviting people to religion, saints were in charge of
warning others, showing and explaining them the right path.141 In the eighteenth
century, Sufi sheikhs continued to serve as mosque preachers, Bursevi being one of
them. During his stay in skdar, he was preaching at the Mosque of Ahmediyye
while in Bursa, he preached in the Ulu, Kaygan and Orhan Mosques.142 With his
writings which aimed to bring religious education and the sharia and sunna abiding
Sufi teachings of the Celvetis available to a wider range of people, he hoped to make
information which was previously accessible by a small group of elites and religious
scholars available to commoners as well. He was hence operating in the wider milieu
of the text which was not necessarily limited to the pulpit of the mosque or the lodge

140

Zilfi, The Kadzadelis, pp. 251-269; Derin Terziolu, Niyazi Msri: Sufi and Dissident,

190-275.
141

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i smailiyye, p. 143 /Fol.13a.

142

Ayni, Trk Azizleri I, p. 63.

64

in spatial terms but carried the potential for the transmission of ideas even at times
when face-to-face interaction was not possible. Thus, these tuhfes which were written
with specific people in mind actually made a claim to reach a much wider audience
than that of the intended receiver. At the end of Tuhfe-i smailiyye, in a couplet
Bursevi was hence saying: This folio was written in skdar/ It enlightened the
lands of Rum every morning and every evening.143 Despite Bursevis wishful
thinking, it is not possible for us to know the actual circulation of these texts among
the people.
In these tuhfes, Bursevi frequently relied on the existing discourses on Ottoman
rulership as a metaphoric tool to explicate rather complicated Sufi terminology.
Bursevis widespread use of the discourse on rulership as an educational tool in
clarifying Sufi notions points to the availability of this discourse in the eighteenth
century not only for statesmen and rulers but by a wide range of people who
constituted his intended audience.144
Bursevis Tuhfe-i Aliyye (also referred to as Slukul-Mluk, 1708) stands out
among his other tuhfes not just because it was his earliest attempt in the nasihatname
genre but also because it addressed a statesman of significant political authority,
orlulu Ali Paa, the grand vizier of the period. Bursevi claimed to have written the

143

skdar ire yazld bu varak/ Rumu ruen eyledi her subh u am Bursevi, Tuhfe-i
smailiyye, p. 176/ Fol. 30a.
144

For example, while commenting on the wantonness of professing such ecstatic exclamations
as Enel-Hakk Bursevi made a resemblance to the redundancy of the sultan proclaiming that he is
the sultan. After everyone paid allegiance to him in acknowledgment of his sultanate, there was no
need for the sultan to prove himself. Similarly, the saint did not have to profess his spiritual rank and
proximity to God. Mehmet Ali Akidil, smail Hakk Bursevi Hayat, Eserleri ve Tuhfe-i meriyye`si
(Tenkitli Metin) (M.A. thesis Gazi University, 1996), p. 56.

65

text upon a divine inspiration. In this text, Bursevi did not only provide counsels but
also commented on contemporary issues regarding Ottoman political authority and
legitimacy mostly in a question-answer format. There are five extant manuscripts of
the text indicating a limited circulation.145 The text starts off as an imaginary
conversation between the grand vizier and Bursevi who claimed to have written the
text to provide assistance to rulers.146 It was also during this period that Osmanzade
Ahmet Taib (d. 1723/4) composed his biographical dictionary of grand viziers, one
of the many indicators of the increasing significance attached to viziers in
literature.147 On the one hand, since the mid-sixteenth century, the grand vizier had
gained increasing visibility as the director of state affairs with the withdrawal of the
sultan. However this process was matched by the simultaneous limitation of his
executive powers due to the increasing influence of diverse factions in the political
sphere (particularly the grand mufti). As a result, many authors directed their
counseling activities to the figure of the grand vizier throughout the seventeenth
century.148 This must have been one of the reasons why Bursevi preferred to dedicate
his tract of advice to the grand vizier. Although their first encounter cannot be
asserted with certainty for now, in Tuhfe-i Recebiyye Bursevi related his meeting
with the grand vizier in Istanbul (1710) upon the latters request to receive advice.149

145

See f.n. 52.

146

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye, p.198 /Fol.1b.

147

Tezcan, The Politics of Early Modern, pp. 193-194.

148

Ylmaz, Osmanl Devletinde Batllama ncesi, p. 5.

149

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, pp. 383-384 /Fol.78a.

66

The same year, he was dismissed from office and sent to exile in Kefe because of his
rather aggressive approach to the war with Russia. Only a year later, he was
persecuted by the fetva issued by his contender, eyhlislam Pamakzade Seyyid
Ali Efendi.150 In el-Varidat (ca. 1717), Bursevi related the dismissal and subsequent
persecution of orlulu Ali Paa to his disregard for the advices provided in Tuhfe-i
Aliyye and indulgence in his ego.151
In Tuhfe-i Recebiyye (1718) which was written in Damascus for the citys
governor Recep Paa, Bursevi focused on the twelve names of God which were
considered essential for the teachings and practices of the Celvetiyye order.152 Each
of the twelve names was explained in relation to the equivalent station in the Sufi
path within the framework of the vahdet-i vcud doctrine. Furthermore, Bursevi
provided instructions as to what a beginner on the Sufi path should do to make these
names manifest in his being. According to Bursevi, after being appointed as the
governor of Damascus in 1718, Recep Pasha had become rather interested in his
works and wanted to be better acquainted with his writings hence commissioning the

150

orlulu Ali Paa was appointed grand vizier to the court of Ahmed III in 1706. According
to Danmend, he was discharged from office in 1710 and sent to exile in Kefe because of his
aggressive attitude towards Russia which was implied in the secret order he sent to the Crimean Khan
to help Charles XII of Sweden in the war against Russia. Allegedly the grand vizier was not abiding to
the pacifist stance of the sultan on the issue. smail Hami Danmend, zahl slam Tarihi Kronolojisi
vol. IV (Istanbul: Bb- li Yaynevi, 1960), p. 3.
151

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye, p. 191.

152

Bursevi openly claimed that he wrote Tuhfe-i Recebiyye in Turkish, language of the
common people, rather than Arabic, lingua franca of religious sciences, so that more people could
benefit from it. Despite Bursevis good intentions for accesibility, it is difficult to suggest that the
language of the book was easy enough for commoners to indulge in its subtleties. The fact that there is
only one extant copy in the libraries of Istanbul is further evidence for Tuhfe-i Recebiyyes rather
limited circulation at least in the capital city. See Note 53 above; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, p.
209/ Fol. 3a.

67

writing of this book.153 The way in which Bursevi had changed the structure and the
contents of Tuhfe-i Recebiyye upon a divine inspiration echoed Ibn Arabis claim to
have written Fthat- Mekkiye only by divine dictation.154 It was not uncommon
for Bursevi to comment in his texts on the divinely inspired and initiated nature of
his writing activities.
Considering that the book was dedicated to a governor, who was well educated
and had more reading history when compared to a janissary, it is not surprising to see
that the language of Tuhfe-i Recebiyye is much more sophisticated than Tuhfe-i
smailiyye. The fact that it is copiously embellished with poetry, and unlike Tuhfe-i
smailiyye opens up with a eulogy for Recep Paa reflects the perceived high status
of the addressee and suggests a patronage relationship between the governor of
Damascus and Bursevi.155 The more sophisticated and literary language of the text
may point to the level of education of the governor and the depth of his knowledge of
Sufi terminology. On the other hand, the sophistication of the text may be
consciously constructed by Bursevi to imply the grandeur of the receiver as a patron
of literary production.
Tuhfe-i smailiyye (1720, skdar), one of Bursevis most easy to read texts,
was addressed to a janissary soldier named Hac smail Piyade (Yenieri Lefkevi)

153

because he is aspiring for further education and wishing to study some of our works,
some works and secrets have been inserted in this record, and the limited days which belong to the
capital of precious life have been spent for writing this work. It has been named Tuhfe-i Recebiyye on
account of his glorious and privileged name and has been sent to their party by way of present. Ibid.,
pp. 207-208/ Fol. 2b.
154

Chodkiewicz, Seal of the Saints, p. 18; pp. 49-50.

155

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, pp. 205-207/ Fol. 2a-2b.

68

who accompanied Bursevi during the two Austria campaigns (in 1695 and 1696)
which he attended as spiritual and moral support to the army.156 Yenieri Lefkevi was
charged with the duty of escorting and protecting Bursevi during the two formidable
campaigns in which he was moderately injured. According to Bursevi, this old
acquaintance later on asked him some questions related to catechism (ilm-i hal)
which he answered in writing.157 Catechisms made a claim to the establishment of
order and conformity through an authoritative voice which did not yield the
possibility for religious debates, thus it was a popular form among the Ottoman
scholars in the seventeenth century who were continuously reflecting their concerns
for the re-ordering of the society.158 In the text Bursevi explained different kinds and
stations of faith and the significance of good deeds through stories, Quranic verses
and hadith with no specific reference to works of other scholars. For Bursevi, the
most important prospect of this text was its educational aspect although he did not
shun away from adorning it with some poetry to spice up the aesthetic side.
Tuhfe-i meriyye (1722, skdar), along with Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye of which
there are eight extant manuscripts, again does not indicate a wide-spread circulation
since there are only seven manuscripts available in the libraries of Istanbul. 159 This

156

Naml, smail Hakk Bursevi, pp. 70-73, p. 113; Ayni, Trk Azizleri I, pp. 65-67.

157

hem-tarik ve her cadde-i zaruriyyede refikimiz olan Hac smail Piyade, yani Yenieri
Lefkevi baz mesail-i ilm-i hal mutalebe ve sualde mgalebe etmekle, birka feride-i fevaid rite-bend
tahrir oldu. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i smailiyye, p. 123 /Fol. 1b; Hac smail olup bais ona/ Eyledi tahriri
iin ihtimam Ibid., p. 176/ Fol. 30a.
158

Zilfi, The Politics of Piety, p. 202.

159

For the details of the manuscripts copies of Tuhfe-i meriyye, see f.n. 55; For Tuhfe-i
Hasekiyye, see footnote 54.

69

was another one of his easy-to-read books about the basics of the Celveti order, its
mores, dhikr practices and the idea of tevhid (unity of God) and was dedicated to a
particular dervish mer who had entered the Celveti path.160 While the contents of
the text were mostly related to the vahdet-i vcud doctrine and the importance of
submitting to a competent sheikh, Bursevi also made use of political concepts and
imagery (particularly about the sultan and the sultanate) in defining Sufi notions. It is
difficult to imagine a patronage relationship between this newly made Celveti
dervish and smail Hakk Bursevi; rather the tuhfe must have been a sincere attempt
at writing easy-to-read texts which discussed not only Celveti doctrines and practices
but also a whole lot about Bursevis worldview to a more extensive audience which
was symbolized in the person of the dervish mer. The fact that there are no
perspicuous eulogies and references to the intended receiver of the text, despite the
frequent insertion of poems to increase literary value, supports this suggestion. It is
an educational book which aims to simplify Sufi doctrines and practices for the
general reader in a colloquial language.
Another one of Bursevis tuhfes was composed for Seyyid Ahmed Vesimi, an
enderun agha from the palace of Ahmed III, who requested from Bursevi to answer
some of his questions regarding Sufism and religion in general.161 The text was titled
Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye or Kitab- Sluk and was completed in 1722 in skdar. A brief
research in the libraries of Istanbul has yielded fourteen manuscripts, an availability
similar to Tuhfe-i smailiyye of which there are twelve manuscripts. These seem to be

160

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i meriyye, p. 66.

161

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p. 118 /Fol.35a.

70

the most widely circulated tuhfes of Bursevi partly because of their much easier
language of composition.162 The book is based on a question-answer format and
written in a relatively simple Turkish similar to the other tuhfes. It opens with a
discussion on paying allegiance to the Prophet and the position of the saint as his
inheritor. Then throughout the text Bursevi comments on the significance of
submitting to a sheikh along with the sultan and the Pole, the relationship between
Sufis, the necessity of spiritual training, dhikr and conversation with saints. Although
we do not know the extent of the relationship between Bursevi and this figure from
the palace circle, it seems plausible to think that he was interested in the Celveti
order or maybe even a disciple of Bursevi since the text resembles a beginners guide
to Sufism and invites the reader to join the order.
The last text used for analysis is Bursevis Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye (1722), written
for the chief haseki Tubazade Mehmed Aa whom we know was a disciple of
Bursevi and had received an icazetname (document of ratification) from him during
his stay in skdar.163 A general search in the libraries of Istanbul has yielded only
two available manuscripts. Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye was a quite voluminous text which
contained Bursevis commentaries regarding catechism, Sufism, the genealogy of the
prophet, the unity of God and the mystical interpretation of Ottoman state
institutions. It should be noted that Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, one of Bursevis most
structured tuhfes, contains neither an organized Ottoman history nor a coherent

162

For details regarding the manuscripts of Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye see footnote 14; for Tuhfe-i
smailiyye see footnote 56.
163

For the icazetname he recieved from Bursevi see: smail Hakk Bursevi, cazetname,
Beyazt Devlet Ktp., Genel, nr. 7890, Fol.12-18; Naml, smail Hakk Bursevi, p. 209.

71

analysis of Ottoman state institutions in their historical evolution. It cannot be

claimed a treatise on political philosophy either. Although Bursevi provides
examples for the workings of some Ottoman institutions in previous Islamic polities,
these are narrated as illustrative stories in line with the advice for princes tradition.
Thus it is not possible to suggest that Bursevi totally incorporated in his writing the
novel attitude of administrators who aimed to analyze Ottoman state institutions in
their historical development since the mid-sixteenth century. However still, as we
shall see, there are the subtle signs of a disassociation between the Ottoman dynasty
and the state particularly in this text. Considering the inclusiveness of the work and
the limited scope of this thesis, only the parts dealing with the Ottoman state
institutions have been taken into account. The master-disciple relationship between
the author and the ser-haseki, the voluminosity of the text and the frequent literary
embellishments through poems indicate not only the close affiliation between the two
but also the high probability of a generous reward granted to Bursevi by the receiver
of this gift.

Sufi Author vis--vis Socio-Economic and Political Power Groups

Before continuing with the analysis of the abovementioned texts, the contexts within
which these tuhfes were written will be briefly explained. As has been indicated
before, tuhfe as a genre had evolved within a gift-reward economy: the author
provided his text as a literary object to a wealthy patron and in return received a
reward. In the early modern context where the production, dissemination and the
actual reading of texts were rather limited, patronage relations provided authors with
72

the financial means they needed to sustain themselves.164 For the patron, this
relationship indicated a manifestation of his social, economical and cultural
distinction as a protector of artistic production.165 In Tuhfe-i smailiyye, Bursevi
legitimized the money paid for shari books (ktb-i eriyye), particularly the Quran
(Mushaf), by claiming them to be gifts since they were basically invaluable.166 Thus
he was not necessarily against receiving rewards in the form of money or barter in
exchange for his books. Although we do not know the extent of Bursevis earnings
from his writing activities, it is plausible to think that he received some sort of
reward at least for the tuhfes he composed for the grand vizier, the governor of
Damascus and the members of the palace staff who were significant loci of power
during the early eighteenth century.
With the enlargement of the political nation and the accumulation of material
wealth by different sections of the society all throughout the late sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries, new loci of political and financial power such as the
janissaries, royal women and palace officials started to become increasingly more
visible as political actors.167 The increasing visibility of these previously underrepresented groups in the political sphere was matched by a parallel visibility in the

164

Halil nalck, air ve Patron (Ankara: Dou Bat Yaynlar, 2003), p.16.

165

Fetvac, Vizier to Eunuchs, p.7.

166

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i smailiyye, pp. 130-131 /Fol.6a.

167

Tezcan, The Second Ottoman Empire, p. 58-72, pp. 100-108, p. 175-180; For a detailed
account of the rising influence of royal women in Ottoman politics see: Leslie Peirce, The Imperial
Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993).
As an example for the wide-spread architectural patronage of royal women in the seventeenth century
see: Lucienne Thys-enocak, Ottoman Women Builders: The Architectural Patronage of Hadice
Turhan Sultan (Aldershot, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2006).

73

public through architectural and artistic patronage and their changing consumption
patterns.168 For example, in the first half of the eighteenth century Hac Beir Agha
(palace agha) with his extensive networks of power had patronized the construction
of many lodges, libraries and mosques.169 Particularly the court strived to manifest
itself physically in the urban space of the capital city through the construction of
gardens, fountains, promenades in order to strengthen the imperial image which was
scarred by long years of unsuccessful warfare in the late seventeenth century.170 A
comment he made in Tuhfe-i meriyye is indeed illustrative of the increasing
charitable activities in the capital city and Bursevis approach to such acts: They
establish pious foundations with properties acquired by oppression and usurpation,
and they do not receive any rewards in the afterlife.171 In that case the real owners
of these usurped properties (Bursevi probably referred to the collection of heavy
taxes) would be rewarded, not the patrons of these works.
Tlay Artans study shows that initially dignitaries, high-ranking bureaucrats
and grand viziers endowed the books in their private collections to waqf libraries
founded mostly in their residences.172 However during the eighteenth century, they

168

Shirine Hamadeh, Ottoman Expressions of Early Modernity and the Inevitable Question
of Westernization, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, vol. 63, no. 1 (Mar., 2004) p.
45.
169

Muslu, Osmanl Toplumunda Tasavvuf, pp. 598-590.

170

Hamadeh, Ottoman Expressions of Early, p. 43.

171

Zulm ve gasbla tahsil olunan emvalden hayrat iderler ve ahiretde menfaatin grmezler.
Bursevi, Tuhfe-i meriyye, p. 70-71; Bursevi provided as an example the case of Zbeyde-i Saliha
Hatun (the wife of the Abbasid caliph Harunr-Reid (d. 809)) who had many pious foundations in
Mecca and Medina (Haremeyn-i erifeyn) but was rewarded in the after life for something else.
172

While the grand vizier Damad brahim Pasha had donated around 1525 titles to his waqf
library in 1720, there were still one hundred and sixty three items in his private collection. Similarly in

74

started to found increasingly more free-standing libraries (just like free-standing

water fronts): the libraries of Ahmed III, ehit Ali Paa, Damad brahim Paa being
some of the early examples.173 Thus the circulation of texts gained impetus in these
newly established libraries which were not necessarily attached to a mosque, or a
lodge. Furthermore, newly rising power groups found in the object of the book
another mirror of socio-economic and cultural distinction hence commissioning the
writing of literary works. However the extent of literary patronage and circulation of
texts during this period remains to be researched as the available studies focus either
on architectural patronage or consumption habits.
The fact that most of his tuhfes (except for Tuhfe-i Recebiyye and Tuhfe-i
Aliyye) were written during his stay in skdar points to the possibility that Bursevi
was trying to associate with various people from the palace circle. It was also during
this period that both the chief inspector of the imperial gardens Bahri Hseyin Efendi
and the chief-haseki Tubazade Mehmed Aa received their icazetnames (documents
of ratification) from Bursevi, indicating a master-disciple relationship.174
Considering that he also composed a work for Seyyid Ahmed Vesimi, the enderun
agha, it seems plausible to think that Bursevi had established connections with

his mansion and two waterfront residences, the grand admiral Kaymak Mustafa Paa had around 2000
titles which he aimed to endow to a library. Tlay Artan, Problems Relating to the Social History
Context of the Acquisition and Possession of Books as Parts of Collections of Objets dArt in the 18th
Century, in Proceedings of the Xth International Congress of Turkish Art, 17-23 September 1995,
(Geneva, 1999), pp. 89-91; Shirine Hamadeh, Splash and Spectacle: The Obsession with Fountains
in Eighteenth-Century Istanbul, Muqarnas 19, (2002), p. 154.
173

smail E. Ernsal, Trk Ktphaneleri Tarihi (Ankara: Atatrk Kltr, Dil ve Tarih Yksek
Kurumu, 1991), p. 57-64.
174

Naml, smail Hakk Bursevi, p.209.

75

various figures from the palace circle. The fact that he composed tuhfes specific to
them and even established ties of discipleship indicates his position vis-a-vis the
newly articulated members of the political nation. These groups who were
previously loyal only to the sultan, by the early eighteenth century had turned into
factions within themselves, accumulating significant financial resources.175 The
changing faade and definition of politics with the expansion of the political nation
through the seventeenth century (notwithstanding the continuing centrality of viziers,
governors and high-ranking administrators) was thus reflected in the changing
patterns of patronage and association with power groups. In that sense Bursevis
composition of these texts was a political act in itself: an act which associated its
perpetrator with various loci of power.
Tlay Artan argues that during this period illustrated manuscripts and other
books were hoarded as never before, and thesaurized into a proliferation of private
libraries, but still it is difficult to assert how much of this consumption and
circulation was indeed finalized by the actual reading of the books.176 Eighteenth
century poet Nabis resentments about the superficial attitude towards the acquisition
of books may be recalled at this point: No one pays attention to the meanings and
subtle witticisms in books/ They just care for the decoration of the heading and the

175

For the expansion of the political nation Baki Tezcan, The Second Ottoman Empire; For
the architectural patronage of these previously under-represented groups see Shirine Hamadeh, The
City's Pleasures: Istanbul in the Eighteenth Century (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2008).
176

Tlay Artan, Aspects of the Ottoman Elite's Food Consumption: Looking For 'Staples,'
'Luxuries,' And 'Delicacies,' in a Changing Century, in Consumption Studies and the History of the
Ottoman Empire, ed. Donald Quataert (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press 2000), p.
111.

76

gilding of the preface.177 Since this was an age in which consumption had become a
signifier of social and cultural distinction, the book was regarded more as a
commodity, an object of art reflecting the owners social status and openness to new
kinds of knowledge.178 Although understandability, readability and
commensurability in the minds of the readers seem to have been one of the decisive
factors for the organization of Bursevis tuhfes, the extent of these texts circulation
within the newly established public libraries outside the court circle remains to be
researched.
One last note about the intended audience of these texts needs to be made. In
Tuhfe-i smailiyye, Bursevi exclaimed: I rendered my gifts words simple/ So that
common people can grasp its meaning.179 Which sections of the society did Bursevi
point to when he used the generic words avam, enam and amm in reference to
common people; it is quite difficult to tell. Considering the fact that both literacy
rates and access to books among the commoners were quite low, it can be claimed
that the only way ordinary people could have access to these books was if someone
read it out loud for them. It seems more plausible to argue that for Bursevi, common
people included those who were not well-versed in religious sciences and Sufi
teachings and the foreign languages associated with them. These probably included

177

Aramaz kimse maani v nikatn ktbn/ Nak- ser-levha v dibae-i halkarn arar. Ali
Fuat Bilkan, Nb: Hayat Sanat Eserleri (Ankara : Aka, 1999), pp. 79-80.
178

On the consumption craze during the Tulip Age, see Ariel Salzmann, The Age of Tulips:
Confluence and Conflict in Early Modern Consumer Culture (1500-1730), in Consumption Studies
and the History of the Ottoman Empire ed. Donald Quataert (Albany: State University of New York
Press, 2000), p. 88; Artan, Problems Relating to the Social History, p. 88.
179

Tuhfemin asan kldm lafzn/ Manasn fehm eyleye ta kim enam. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i
smailiyye, p. 176/ Fol. 30a.

77

administrators, soldiers, palace staff as well as literate urbanites, new disciples,

beginners in Sufism and people who frequented a lodge but were not necessarily
disciples. Thus if we are to speak of an expansion in the circulation of Sufi texts
through the broadening of patronage ties and the increasing availability of books in
the newly established libraries in the eighteenth century, we should not mistake this
with the popularization of works in todays sense. Still, expansion must have
remained in a limited milieu which consisted of people who had both the educational
skills and material wealth to access books.180

180

In his study on the histories produced by the court in the sixteenth century, Baki Tezcan also
points out the difficulty of knowing how much such texts circulated beyond the palace circle. Tezcan,
Politics of Early Modern, pp. 180-181.

78

CHAPTER III
CONCEPTUALIZING SPIRITUAL AND POLITICAL AUTHORITIES

This chapter details the conceptual background of Bursevis attitude towards Sufistate relations by analyzing the way in which spiritual and political authorities were
represented in a similar fashion in his writings. Through a focus on the ordination,
operation, function, characteristics and titles of the sultan and the Pole, I try to show
firstly how the Ottoman political system was defined by Bursevi as a reflection of the
cosmic scheme and a manifestation of the divine names hence the reason of order on
earth. However this was by no means a one-way process: Bursevi adopted the
organization of political authority in defining spiritual authority as well. In that
respect one can find in his formulation of an expansion in the spiritual hierarchy
echoes of the expansion of the Ottoman state apparatus during the seventeenth
century. Secondly, I propose that the similarity in the conceptualization of the sultan
and the Pole (and the other offices emanating from their rank) did not only provide a
religio-mystical legitimacy for Ottoman rule and superiority but also established the
Pole and his vicegerents as legitimate authority figures vis--vis the Ottoman state.

Order in the Cosmos, Order in the World

Just like many other polities in history, the way early modern Ottomans
conceptualized the organization of their governmental system was similar to their
understanding of cosmology. As Aziz Al-Azmeh suggests the problematic of order

79

is most often, until the advent of modernity, situated in terms of the connection
between terrestrial and extra-terrestrial orders, and takes the form, most notably of
the metaphorisation of power in terms of the sacred.181 Bursevi too attributed the
characteristics of the organization of the sacred to define the profane and vice versa.
This way, he not only conceptualized the hierarchical organization of political
authority in the Ottoman state as a manifestation of divine will but also pointed out
the divinely ordained purpose of the power to rule (which was symbolized in the
sultan but not necessarily limited to him) as the maintenance of this mirrored order.
According to Bursevi, the faade of the cosmos (suret-i alem) was maintained
with the reign of the sultan who by virtue of his rank at the zenith of temporal
authority was the reason of the order of mankind (sebeb-i intizam- Beni Adem), an
attribute which prevailed among almost all polities in time and space.182 The
sultanate as a rank was conceptualized by Bursevi as both the work and
manifestation of divinity (uluhiyyet) on earth.183 In the organization of the
governmental hierarchy, it was necessary that the sultan be ordained as the initial
rank so that other ranks and offices were established in relation to him.184 He was the
second cause (the first one being God himself) from which all other causes and

181

Aziz Al-Azmeh, Muslim Kingship: Power and the Sacred in Muslim, Christian and Pagan
Polities (London, New York: I.B. Tauris, 1997), p. 4.
182

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye, p. 214/ Fol. 11b; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i meriyye, p.44; Bursevi,
Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, p. 181/Fol. 201b.
183

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye, p. 203/ Fol. 5a.

184

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i meriyye, 50-51.

80

degrees emanated.185 In mystical terms, before his accession to throne, the sultan
existed at the level of one essence (zat- ehadiyye) where there was no allocation of
duties, positions, attributes and features. Only after his enthronement (clus) did he
condescend to the level of unique essence (zat- vahidiyye) from which other ranks of
the sultanate were derived. The sultan became manifest and acknowledged by the
people who were expected to pay allegiance to him.186 A similar but symbolic
process of enthronement was also conceptualized for the Pole where he was seated
on the throne wearing a crown of dignity (vakar) and a robe of honor (hilat) made of
the divine names.187 This level corresponded to that of creation through which Gods
names, attributes and their owners became manifest. According to Gottfried Hagen,
the Ottoman theological tradition was based on a concept of causality through
divine ordination.188 The process of the formation of the state was thus explained by
Bursevi in theological and mystical terms in correspondence to the creation of the
cosmos wherein first of all, the universal soul (ruh- klli, the sultan) and secondly
the prime intellect (akl- evvel, the grand vizier) were created. Only after that, other
cosmic ranks (meratib-i kevniyye, other state offices) came into existence.189 This

185

First cause is defined as the absolute existence of the one God while the second cause is his
first creation from which all other created beings emerged. Ibn Arabi, Divine Governance of the
Human Kingdom (At-Tadbirat al-ilahiyyah fi islah al-mamlakat al-insaniyyah), interp. Shaykh Tosun
Bayrak al-Jerrahi al-Halveti (Louisville: Fons Vitae, 1997), pp.24-25.
186

Ibid., pp. 50-51.

187

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p. 135/ Fol. 45a; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye, p. 213/ Fol. 11a.

188

Hagen, Afterward: Ottoman Understandings,p.220.

189

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i meriyye, p. 74; Ibn Arabi, Divine Governance of the Human
Kingdom, pp. 26-27.

81

hierarchical ordination of political authority implied order and an expectable

seriality.
Just as all of creation looked up to God and existed only in relation to him (not
independently), the reaya and the statesmen submitted to only one sultan and were
obliged to obey him because he was zllullah (the shadow of God) meaning the
manifestation of Gods names and attributes on earth as an image of God (suret-i
Hakk).190 However in Bursevis account it is not always clear whether the sultan was
zllullah vis--vis God or through the mediation of the Pole since the sultan was
defined also as the shadow (saye) of the essential man (Adem-i hakiki) and the divine
truth (hakikat- ilahiyye). This divine truth found its manifestation in every age in the
person of the kutb- vcud (the pole of existence) as the most complete inheritor of
the prophet Muhammads spiritual heritage. The Pole was the pivotal figure through
whom Gods blessings and benediction reached earth and the reason of existence of
the spiritual world (melekut- alem).191
Pole had several literal meanings such as axis, shaft and the leader of a
community.192 In Ibn Arabis elaboration, the term had two connotations: the first
usage implied an idealistic pivotal point occupied by a person within a given
community. For example, there was a pole around which ascetics rotated: he was the
epitome of asceticism, its most perfect example.

190

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i meriyye p. 44; Bursevi, Kitabn-Netice vol. I, p. 12; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i
Hasekiyye, III, p. 93/ Fol.272a.
191

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, II, p. 159-160/ Fol.181b-182a.

192

For a brief summary of the uses of the term by Muslim scholars before the formulation of
Ibn Arabi see Sleyman Ate, Kutb, in Trkiye Diyanet Vakf slm Ansiklopedisi vol. 26 (Ankara:
Trkiye Diyanet Vakf, 2002), p. 498.

82

Thus the concept of the pole emerged as an abstract utopian feature utilized to
indicate the epitome of a particular activity or condition at any given time and
space.193 The second usage by Ibn Arabi implied the highest rank in the invisible
hierarchy of saints; this was the person around whom not only other saints but the
whole creation rotated. This rank was an office of vicegerency inherited from the
prophet Muhammad. The hierarchical organization of saints was topped by the Pole,
followed by the two imams, four evtad, seven abdals and many other ranks of saints
in a condescending manner.194 According to Bursevi, the Pole was the most perfect
manifestation of divine truth as passed on from the prophet Muhammad in the
spiritual station of hakkel-yakin (truth of certainty) at a given time.195 Friend of God
(Veliyyullah), just (adil) and judge (hakim) were some of his names (which were
attributes also associated with temporal rulers) although Ibn Arabi provided a more
extensive list regarding the characteristics of the Pole. 196 He claimed his most
important attributes to be confidentiality, moderation and justice. The Pole was not to
manifest any supernatural deeds and wonders; he accepted traditions and acted

193

Suad El-Hakim, bnl-Arabi Szl trans. Ekrem Demirli (stanbul, Kabalc, 2005) pp.

430-431.
194

Ibn Arabi, Ftuhat- Mekkiyye vol. I (Istanbul: Litera Yaynclk, 2009), p. 464.

195

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i meriyye, p. 44; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, p. 307 /Fol.44a;

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Ataiyye, p. 148/ Fol.70a; Bursevi, Kitabn-Netice vol. I, p. 299. Hakkel-yakin is
the final station in the Sufi path to divine knowledge: it indicates absolute knowledge whose
epistemological foundation is insense and spiritual experiences based on ones proximity to God. The
method to acquire this knowledge and hence proximity to God is defined as unveiling and inspiration.
For more information see: Yusuf evki Yavuz, Hakkel-Yakin, in Trkiye Diyanet Vakf slam
Ansiklopedisi vol. 15 (Ankara: Trkiye Diyanet Vakf, 1997), pp. 203-204.
196

Bursevi, Kitabn-Netice vol. I, pp. 1-2, p. 172; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Ataiyye, p. 92/ Fol. 26a.

83

accordingly so as not to disturb the social order; hence he was a figure of social
conformity and secrecy.197
The sultan was hence defined as shadow by virtue of his manifest position as
the temporal ruler vis--vis the invisible Pole since appearance (suret, kutb- zahir)
was conceptualized as the shadow of the meaning (mana, kutb- batn) beneath it.198
According to this conceptualization, the Pole and other saints (constituting the
spiritual hierarchy) and the sultan and the statesmen (constituting the temporal
government) were portrayed as the two sides of a coin which were intricately linked
and could not be separated. This did not only reduce the sultan to a mere
manifestation on earth whose dominion was intricately linked to the workings of the
invisible realm of the saints dominated by the kutb- vcud but it also idealized the
relationship between the political and spiritual authority figures: Meat and bone
cannot be separated.199

Governance of the Divine Names

When Ibn Arabi mentioned the assistant/mediator nature of the saints and the Pole
in particular, he denoted the capacity of the saints to receive, according to the
circumstances, the authority and power of one of the divine Names, and to reflect
Justice or Mercy or Majesty or Beauty, according to what is required by the state of

197

Ibn Arabi, Ftuhat- Mekkiyye vol. 10, pp. 18-21.

198

Bursevi, Kitabn-Netice vol. I, p. 429; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, II, p. 160/ Fol.182ab, p. 181/ Fol. 202a.
199

Bursevi, Kitabn-Netice vol. I, p. 429

84

things at any given moment.200 What Chodkiewicz calls the cosmic function of
prophethood was realized in the concept of the Pole who, on account of his being a
perfect man was the channel through which the Creator interacted with the created
ones. As the reason for the sustenance of the worldly order through his mere
existence, the saintly figure was believed to have the capacity to intercede for the
affairs of people as the vicegerent of God (vekil-i Hakk).201
Bursevi suggested that according to Sunni Islam, everything must be requested
only from God because He is the one who provides for His subjects.202 The issue of
intercession was discussed by religious scholars for centuries on account of the perils
this belief carried: it could lead people to explicit idolatry.203 If the individual
requested things from other people, he would be ascribing human beings godly
qualities, expecting them to make their wishes come true when the only true actor
was God himself. Being a perfect man, with a complete manifestation of the names
of God, the Pole could act as a channel between God and the people.
And if he is to request from the created ones, he should turn towards the
kutb since because of his name he is the most inclusive. Meaning, he
should request from God on account of the kutb because in the name of
kutb there is amplitude.204

200

Chodkiewicz, Seal of the Saints, p. 57, p. 70.

201

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p.163/ Fol.30a.

202

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, p.349/ Fol.63a; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p. 127/

Fol.40a.
203

John Renard, Friends of God:Islamic Images of Piety, Commitment, and Servanthood

(Berkeley : University of California Press, c2008), pp. 277-279.
204

Ve eer mahluktan taleb ederse kutba tevecch eyleye. Zira, ismi yznden ecmadr. Yani
kutbun yznden Allah Tealadan taleb eyleye. ol cihetten ki kutbun isminde vsat vardr. Bursevi,
Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, p.349 /Fol.63a; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i meriyye, p. 65; Bursevi, Kitabn-Netice
vol. II, p. 203.

85

Conceptualizing the Pole and the other saints as mediators between God and the
people, Bursevi also legitimized the much criticized practices of visiting saints
tombs and asking for intercession from those renowned as saints: God the Almighty
does not deny the mediation and testimony of the saint.205
It is important to recognize here that after God, it was not the sultan first but
the kutbul vcud who was seen capable as acting as a mediator, signifying the
degree of power and authority attributed to the figure of the Pole. Indeed in a poem
in Tuhfe-i smailiyye Bursevi used metaphors such as the nurturing of the universe
(kainatn gdas) and abundance flowing like a river (feyzim kevser gibi) to imply his
mediating position as the Pole.206 Although both the sultan and the Pole manifested
the same names of God such as Gani, Malikl-mlk, Mtekebbir, Rahman, Rahim,
etc. (all of which indicated the capacity to provide and assist creatures) the sultan,
because he was not a perfect man, lacked the esoteric aspects of these names.207
Gods names were manifested in the sultan and the Pole in totality whereas in
common people and statesmen only some of his names were disclosed. The totality
of the names manifested in their beings was the source of their power, authority and
legitimacy.208

205

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i meriyye, p. 68.

206

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i smailiyye, pp. 155-156/ Fol. 19b.

207

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i meriyye, p. 65.

208

Ibid, p. 70.

86

In the case of the temporal government, all the people who occupied state
offices were hierarchically organized according to the inclusiveness of the names
they manifested and aimed to bring to perfection. Thus not only the sultan but the
whole state was conceptualized as a reflection of the cosmic order through the divine
names of God. It was from the rank of the sultan that all of these names were
distributed accordingly to the state officials hence a continuous focus on the
centrality of the sultan. For example the grand mufti was the manifestation of the
name wise (alim) while the chief judge of the name judge (hakim): both names were
derived from the sultan.209
Judges, the gracious and the like are the ones who are the
manifestations of government and benediction. In effect, their
government and benediction is on account of the divine names that
oversee them. Meaning, the appearances dominate the image and in
reality what is manifest in the image is the divine name and indeed the
God Almighty since he is the source and origin of all the names.210
Bursevis use of the divine names of God in explicating the Ottoman governmental
system had two aspects. Firstly, focusing on the names manifested in particular state
institutions helped the formation of a relatively more abstract idea of state and to the
disassociation of offices from the people occupying them. Previously the state was
frequently equated with the person of the sultan and his patrimonial household.
Particularly in the seventeenth century, with the enlargement of its apparatus and the
gradual retreat of the sultan, the state started to be conceptualized by Ottoman

209

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, III, p. 62/ 236a.

210

Hakimin ve rahimin ve emsali, mezahir-i hkumet ve rahment olanlardr ki, fi nefsl-emr

hkumet ve rahmetleri zerlerine nazr olan esma-i ilahiyye hasebiyledir. Yani sureta hakim olan
mezahir ve fil-hakika mezahirde zahir olan ism-i ilahi ve fil-hakika Allah Tealadr ki, cemi
esmann mehaz ve mebdeidir. Ibid, p. 64/ Fol. 238a.

87

scholars more as a separate entity comprised of institutions. This approach was most
apparent in Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye where Bursevis narrative was divided into sections
about the functions and ideal forms of some Ottoman state institutions within the
context of the names of God. Although Bursevis approach towards Ottoman
institutions were rather uninformed about administrative procedures, generic and
disconnected, to a certain extent a similar tendency for abstraction could seen in his
writings as well. However this did not directly imply a disinterest in the morality and
the piety of the sultan and the statesmen. It is on account of the victory of their
religion and piety that rulers and sultans become triumphant and victorious.211
Indeed it seems to have continued to be an underlying concern for a better
government for Bursevi and many other authors.212 Secondly, the separation and the
simultaneous enlargement of the state was reflected by Bursevi as the distribution of
the names revealed by God to the sultan and then to statesmen, hence a hierarchical
diffusion of power. Thus despite the increasing attention given to institutions, for
Bursevi the sultan remained to be the central figure. The multiplicity of state offices
was related to the broadness of the manifested names of the sultan from whom every
statesman received his authority to exercise power.213

211

Mluk ve selatinin mansur muzaffer olduklar, dinleri ve takvalar galip olmakladr.

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i smailiyye, p. 169/ Fol. 27a.
212

Focus on individuals as the sole agents of history hence analyses on individual factors as
reasons for societal and historical change continued to be in use among Ottoman intellectuals in the
seventeenth century: Gottfried Hagen, Afterword: Ottoman Understandings of the World in the
Seventeenth Century, in An Ottoman Mentality: The World of Evliya elebi, ed. Robert Dankoff
(Leiden: Brill, 2004), p. 238.
213

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, III, p. 62/ Fol. 235b-236a.

88

The mediation of the Pole or the sultan and the Ottoman state in general was
legitimate for a sharia-abiding mind like Bursevi only within the framework of the
vahdet-i vcud. He approached the issue from the perspective of esmaullah (the
names of God) being manifest in all of Gods creation which constituted an essential
part of the vahdet-i vcud doctrine. What Bursevi perceived in the Pole and the
sultan or other statesmen were not specific powerful individuals but rather the names
of God that their positions referred to and that became manifest through the beings
occupying those positions. Hence in theory, it was actually not the person of the Pole
or the sultan who was the mediator but rather the names of God that were manifest in
their beings.214

Aktab- rad: Expansion of the Spiritual Government

In Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, Bursevi added the grand vizier and other state officials as the
deputies of the sultan to the list of legitimate mediators in case of need: indeed their
operation was obligatory since the sultan could not undertake the governing of
worldly affairs alone.215 As has been mentioned before, this could be read as a
reflection of the increasing power of loci other than the sultan in governance and the

214

In Tuhfe-i smailiyye, to simplify the application of the vahdet-i vcud doctrine to real life,
Bursevi advised his audience to observe the names of God in the whole creation. For example when
one came across a mountain, one had to observe the names Kavi and Metin (strong and sturdy) instead
of the mountain itself. In the sea, one would observe the name Vasi (wide), etc. Through this
abstraction it was possible to free ones self from a simple association with the physical realm and
catch a glimpse of the inner, esoteric dimensions of existence. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i smailiyye, p. 153/
Fol. 19a.
215

Ibid, p. 72 /Fol.248a.

89

gradual expansion of the state apparatus throughout the seventeenth century. What is
interesting is that one comes across a similar expansion and diffusion of power in
Bursevis depiction of the hierarchy of sainthood as well. While Ibn Arabi reserved
the title Pole for the kutbl-aktab, Bursevi used the term to imply not only that
unique Pole who occupied the office of the gavs at the top of the saintly hierarchy
but a wider range of saints called aktab- irad (the poles of spiritual training) who
reached the station of aynel-yakin. Aktab- irad are many and all of them are
gathered under the flag of the gavs just like viziers and emirs are under the hand of
the grand vizier.216 Kutb- irad was the position which could be attributed to all the
competent Sufi sheikhs who by reaching the level of aynel-yakin would gain the
authority to instruct others in religion (mrid-i kamil).217 Thus although both kutb-
irad and kutb- vcud shared a position of polehood, they differed in terms of
proximity to God (except for the efrad, the solitaires218) and function. Bursevi
elucidated the numerosity (bi-hisab) of the aktab- irad (reaching a thousand) in his
age by suggesting that in the previous ages the reason for the scarcity of poles was

216

Eeri aktab- irad oktur ki cmlesi gavsn taht- livasndadr. Vzera ve umera vezir-i
azamn zir-i destinde olduklar gibi. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p. 135 /Fol.44b.
217

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, p. 307 /Fol. 44a; Bursevi, Kitabn-Netice vol. II, pp. 12-13.
The station of aynel-yakin is the second stage on the three-tiered Sufi path to absolute divine
knowledge. Its epistemological foundations are observations based on sight. El-Hakim, bnl-Arabi
Szl, p. 698; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye, p.217 /Fol.13a.
218

Ibn Arabi defined efrad (also referred to as mukarribin) as the highest station of sainthood,
those who are prophets among the saints. What differentiated them from others was the fullness of
their knowledge of the divine which was not necessarily derived from books or studying, hence the
focus on the epistemological position of hakkel-yakin. Chodkiewicz, Seal of the Saints, p. 55; The
Pole although occupying the highest position in terms of office was not superimposing over the efrad
since spiritually speaking both efrad and aktab were believed to share the same level. Sometimes a
member of the efrad could even be more advanced in divine knowledge than the Pole. The efrad did
not need the mediation of the Pole to interact with the Creator. Ibn Arabi, Ftuhat- Mekkiyye vol. 11
trans. Ekrem Demirli (Istanbul: Litera Yaynclk, 2009), p. 302.

90

the abundance of prophets who pointed out the signs of God through wonders. Back
then people simply did not need more poles because they were guided by the
prophets themselves.219 The term kutb- irad hence emphasized a focus on the
function of the saint not only as a mediator but also as an educator and an active
guide for the people and rulers. It is through these aktab- irad who operated under
the supervision of the Pole that people would enter the Sufi path, learn about divine
knowledge and lead a balanced life. In Tuhfe-i smailiyyes introduction Bursevi
blatantly stated that just like prophets were responsible for convocation (davet) and
notification (tebli), saints were tasked (memur) with the duty of declaration (beyan)
and showing the right path (irad) emphasizing the saints role in directing people in
religious matters. This was one of the reasons why he paid heed to compose
colloquial books he hoped would be used by people for religious training.220
Everyone grasps their meanings (the truth of the Quran and the hadith)
depending on their capability, and those who do not understand, listen to
those who understand carefully and are subject to them. As a matter of
fact, those who understand and speak are the translators of God to
listeners. This is why there is the need for a mediator between those who
are shrouded and God, just as imam is for the community, vizier is for the
sultan, butler is for the lord and asadar is for the sheikh.221
In Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye Bursevi argued that a particular kutb- irad served as the
second imam- zaman along with the first imam who was the shadow of God, namely

219

Bursevi argued that until his time there were only twenty five saints who operated as Poles.
Bursevi, Kitabn-Netice vol. I, p. 327; vol. II, p. 21; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p. 135 /Fol. 44b.
220

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i smailiyye, p. 143 /Fol.13a.

221

Velakin herkes onlardan istidd oldugu kadar maani fehm eyler ve fehm etmeyen fehm
edene tbi olur ve ona kulak tutar. Zira fehm edip syleyen, dinleyenlere Hakkn tercmndr.
Bundandr ki, mahcublarla Hak arasnda vasta lzmdr. mam cemaate ve vezir sultana ve kethuda
beglere ve asadar eyhlere vasta olduu gibi. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i smailiyye, p. 148 /Fol. 15b-16a.

91

the sultan.222 Both imams were under the supervision of the Pole. 223 Here we see
Bursevi differentiating between the spiritual imam of the time (kutb- irad) who is
the equivalent of the sultan and the head of the saintly hierarchy (kutb- vcud).
While the kutb- vcud was responsible for providing general blessings and
abundance to people, the duty of the kutb- irad was to lead people on their religious
path. A plausible explanation for this differentiation is that kutb- vcud, by virtue of
his being hidden and unknown, was represented on earth by the most suitable kutb-
irad of the time as his vicegerent. The relationship between the two can be
compared to that of the sultan and the grand vizier: it is the grand vizier through
whom the commoners know the sultan and only a select few from the palace circle
have direct access to him. It is also the grand vizier, who by virtue of his position of
vicegerency holds the authority to organize state affairs in the name of the sultan.
Similarly, it was through the kutb- irad that the omnipotent kutb- vcud
communicated with the people; the first was the vizier of the latter.224 Thus one can

222

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p. 124/ Fol.38b.

223

These two imam- zaman corresponded to Ibn Arabis definition of the two imams who
operated under the puissance of the Pole, only articulated by different names by Bursevi. Ibn Arabi
suggested that in each epoch, there could only be one Pole and two imams, no less no more.
According to Ftuhat- Mekkiyye, of the two imams, the one which was situated on the left of the Pole
and referred to as Abdl-Malik was responsible for taking care of worldly affairs and succeded the
Pole when he died because the rulership of the temporal world was considered inclusive of the
spiritual realm. People took refuge in this imam in times of hardship and through him God removed
their burdens. The imam on the right was referred to as Abdl-Rabb and he was in charge of the
spiritual world. This imams duty was praying for the people, pleading to God to show them mercy
and lead them to the right path. He was protected from the tricks and dodges of the devil, and
provided divine knowledge to everyone according to their competency. Ibn Arabi, Ftuhat-
Mekkiyye vol. 10, p. 14-17; Konuk, Tedbirat- lahiyye: Tercme ve erhi, p. 204; However, in Tuhfei Hasekiyye, Bursevi used the same desciption provided by Ibn Arabi but did not necessarily denote
the sultan and the kutb- irad as the two imams: Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, II, p. 202-203
/Fol.221a-b.
224

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, pp. 124-125 /Fol.38b.

92

speak of a relative de-mystification, increasing visibility and expansion at the level of

aktab- irad who were numerous and operated as the vicegerents of the
Muhammedan truth (epitomized in the person of the kutb- vcud) on earth. The
multiplicity of aktab- irad and their authorization to educate people and to
intercede in their affairs imply a diffusion of the Poles power and an expansion in
the saintly hierarchy which was conceptualized in similar ways to the governmental
hierarchy.
It is highly probably that Bursevi adopted the term kutb- irad which does not
exist in the writings of Ibn Arabi (and the Bayrami-Melamis who frequently relied
on the concept to define the head of their order) from Ahmad Sirhindi (d. 1624) a
Naqshbandi sheikh from India who is regarded as the founder of the reformist
Mujaddidi branch.225 Sirhindis focus on the station of spiritual training (makam-
irad) and following the path of the prophet by combining the shari and the divine
truth are indeed very much similar to Bursevis vision of Sufism as shall be seen in
the following chapters.226 Sirhindi defined kutb- irad as the perfect successor of
Muhammad as Gods prophet, hence pointing to his public role in educating people,
inviting them to the right path and interpreting divine law. The kutbul-aktab on the
other hand, inherited the prophets aspect of sainthood.227 In that respect his
understanding of the nature and function of the kutb- irad was simlar to that of

225

He is most often referred to as the renewer of the second millenium. J. G. J. Ter Haar,
Follower and Heir of the Prophet: Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi as Mystic. (Leiden : Het Oosters Instituut,
1992).
226

Ibid, p. 39, p. 50, pp. 55-57.

227

Ibid, pp. 88-89.

93

Bursevi. Indeed Ali Naml points out the fact that Bursevi named two of his sons
(Bahddin Muhammed and Ubeydullah) after the famous Naqshbandi sheikhs
Ubeydullahl Ahrar (d. 1490) and Muhammed Bahad-din Buhari (d. 1389). In his
Mecmuatl-Fevaid vel-Varidat, Bursevi openly stated that he named his sons as
such in respect for some newly emerging Naqshbandi saints (baz evliya-i
nakibendiyye).228 The Mujaddidi branch of the Naqshbandiyya started to become
influential in the Ottoman lands during the late seventeenth century with the arrival
of Murad- Buhari in Istanbul and later with Mehmed Emin-i Tokadi.229 Although
Bursevis relationship with the rising Naqshbandi-Mujaddidi sheikhs of the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries has not been detailed yet, this frank comment
reveals his keenness towards them.

The Issue of Manifestation and Visibility

Visibility in the temporal sphere was defined as one of the decisive factors for the
enforcement of political authority and the main reason why women could not
become prophets, caliphs or imams. These positions of leadership required
manifestation (zuhur), communication (tebli) and judgment (hkm) all of which
were deemed forbidden for women since they were expected to remain concealed
within their established boundaries in the private sphere. To legitimize this argument

228

Naml, smail Hakk Bursevi, p. 117.

229

Halil brahim imek, Osmanlda Mceddidilik XII/XVIII. Yzyllar (Istanbul: ISTAM,

2004, pp. 106-120, p. 215.

94

Bursevi quoted a hadith which said: A tribe which is ruled by a woman cannot find
salvation.230 Defining the inability to govern with femininity he added that those
who were short of intellect (noksan- akl) and imprudent (fesad- tedbir) were also to
be considered within the category of women despite of their sexuality. One wonders
whether these exclamations of Bursevi were subtle reprovals of the rise of royal
women (specifically the mother and the wife of the sultan) in the political sphere in
the seventeenth century.231
According to Bursevi the office of Polehood was similar to that of the sultanate
indicating that it required manifestation which was impossible for women who
needed to remain concealed. Indeed Ibn Arabi suggested that both men and women
could become Poles. The statement about the necessity of manifestation becomes
even more ambiguous when the most significant aspect of the Pole has frequently
been defined by Ibn Arabi and his followers as confidentiality and concealment.
Bursevi also suggested that although those who recognized the authority of the kutb-
vcud and submitted to him would benefit from this proximity, knowledge of this
most prominent saint was limited to a select few. Thus the Pole was not an easily
approachable and recognizable figure.232 However in Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, Bursevi also

230

Kendilerini kadnn ynettii kavim kurtulamaz. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye, p. 201/ Fol.

3b-4a.
231

See Peirce, The Imperial Harem. In Bursevis conceptualization, the sultans harem was a
taboo much like the harem of the Sufi sheikh: no one could marry their mothers or wives. They were
considered sacred on account of their association with the ruler. In Sufi terms, it meant that the sultan
being the soul in the body was under the influence of two forces: the protected ego (nefs-i kudsiyye)
symbolized by the mother and the animalistic ego (nefs-i hayvaniyye) indicating the wife. The
eunuchs as the servants of the sultan represented the ceasing of lust (ehvet). This association seems to
have been influenced by Ibn Arabis conceptualization of body as a political metaphor for the Sufi.
Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, III, p. 86/ Fol. 263a; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i meriyye, pp. 88-89.
232

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p.125 /Fol.38b; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i meriyye, p. 74.

95

legitimized the participation of the saints in social life by arguing that it was not
necessary for them to remain veiled after reaching the highest station on the spiritual
path: After perfection there is no need for concealment (tesettr).233 What did
Bursevi mean by the necessity of manifestation then? It is clear from his statements
that he did not imply the disclosing of the Pole on earth as the temporal ruler. He did
not provide any direct influence to the Pole in having direct political agency and
changing the world; he could only work indirectly through fate and fortune (kaza ve
kader) or by training people in the esoteric knowledge of the divine. At least in
theory, his authority was limited to the spiritual realm because they were not
permitted to start rehabilitating the world. The burden to alleviate the disorder in
the empire thus remained on the shoulders of the rulers, the statesmen and the
religious scholars who were supposed to educate and warn them.234 Similarly Sar
Abdullah specified at the beginning of his text that unlike the sultans, saints and men
of the hidden realm (ricall gayb) were not appointed as rulers on earth; they were
only the spiritual (manevi) caliphs.235
In Kitabn-Netice, Bursevi related a rhetoric question regarding the temporal
authority of the poles as such: If one asks: That being the case, wasnt it necessary

233

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p. 154/ Fol. 55b.

234

Ve alemde hala mevcud olan aktab slah- aleme mbaerete mezn deillerdir. Belki
kaza ve kader ile cereyan ederler. Ibid., pp. 299-300 /Fol.40a.
235

Sleyman Erahin, Bir Siyasetname rnei Sar Abdullah Efendi`nin Tedbir`n

Ne`eteyn fi Islah`n Nshateyn Adl Eserinin Transkripsiyonu Ve Deerlendirilmesi (M.A. thesis,
Krkkale University, 2002), p. 36-37 /Fol.2a. Henceforth, the section in which Erahin transcribed the
original work of Sar Abdullah will be referenced with the name of Sar Abdullah and the text under
question instead of the name of the thesis.

96

for the poles of the world to exercise authority for the rehabilitation of the universe
and act in a way so as to assist in the establishment of the order of the world?236 The
answer he provided went on like this: The requirement of true unity with God is to
abandon the exercise of authority and to endorse the order of God.237 In this
response, Bursevis approach regarding the possibility of direct social and political
activism on behalf of the poles was limited by his rather fatalistic vision since he
suggested that whatever was written in divine knowledge (ilm-i ilahi) could not be
altered with anyones exercise of authority. Everything that occurred in an epoch was
founded on solid knowledge (ilm-i tamm) and manifest wisdom (hikmet-i bahire)
from which digression was impossible.238 However although the poles and other men
of God, at least in theory, were not to manifest themselves and exercise authority on
earth perspicuously as rulers, they were still conceptualized as having the control of
both the temporal (mlk) and spiritual (melekut) worlds in their hands: The perfect
man is the caliph of God and the dominion of the temporal and spiritual worlds have
been given to them [ricalullah]. Then, it is God Almighty who exercises power on
earth through them.239

236

Sual olunursa ki: n ki hal byledir, aktab- dnyaya gerek idi ki slah- alem iin
tasarrufat gstereler ve nizam- aleme bais olur vechile hareket edeler? Bursevi, Kitabn-Netice
vol. I, p. 12.
237

Mukteza-y tevhid-i hakiki, terk-i tasarruf ve tefviz-i emr illallahdr. Zira, ilm-i ilahide olan
nesne kimsenin tasarrufuyla mtegayyir olmaz. Ibid.
238

Ibid.

239

Ve ricalullah yznden olduu budur ki, insan- kamil Hakkn halifesidir ki, mlk ve
melekutun tasarrufu onlara verilmitir. Pes, hakikatte onlarn yznden mutasarrf olan Allah
Tealadr. Bursevi, Kitabn-Netice vol. I, p. 227.

97

In the case of the aktab- irad manifestation and participation in the public
sphere was more important since they were incumbent with providing religious
training and showing people the right path. In Tuhfe-i Aliyye, Bursevi explicitly
claimed the function of the poles to be forbidding wrong (nehy anil-mnker) which
required their socialization and visibility in the public sphere.240 Sufis should try to
counsel people and act as mediators for their salvation (efaat) following the
footsteps of the prophet.241 The aim of sending vicegerents to different places,
according to Bursevi, was to revive religion (ihya-y din) by showing people the right
path both in exoteric and esoteric aspects, hence combining Sufistic teachings with
sharia rules and practices handed down from the prophets Sunna.242 However,
Bursevi never condoned the occupation of state offices or engaging in worldly
endeavors other than the teaching of religion. According to his account, he had been
offered the position of mufti at least two times, a position which was usually
occupied by medrese professors.243 The reason why Sufis like Bursevi denied

240

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye, p. 208 /Fol.7b; For a similar comment by Bursevi see Bursevi,
Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, III, p. 85/ Fol. 262b; Ali Erkens study shows there was a similar approach for
the saints active participation in public life in the Bayrami-Melami hagiographies of the late
seventeenth century and early eighteenth centuries as well. They emphasized the significance of
working in a daily job, and this stance was one of the reasons for many Bayrami-Melamis (among
whom there were statesmen, craftesmen and traders) pursuit of temporal power. Erken, A Historical
Analysis of Melami-Bayrami, pp. 54-57.
241

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, p.353 /Fol.64b-65a.

242

Bundan fehm olundu ki, bu makule ii tutmadan garaz- asli, halk, zahir batna iradla
ihya-i din etmektir ki din, vaz- ilahidir. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i smaliyye p. 143/ Fol. 13b. This vision
which focused on the role of the Sufi sheikh as a religious educator was in contrast with the
seventeenth century Celveti sheikh Selami Alis views as expressed in his Tarikatname (composed in
the latter part of the seventeenth century) which warned vicegerents to Sufi sheikhs not to engage with
the people and counseled them to lead an ascetic life. Selami Ali Efendi, pp. 106-107, p. 109.
243

Colin Imber, The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650: The Structure Of Power (Houndmills,
Basingstoke, Hampshire, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002), p. 234; An offer for the position of the
mufti had been made by the locals to Bursevi during his stay in Kprl, and on account of his

98

occupying offices was because they thought such an active engagement with worldly
positions would prevent them from reaching higher levels of spiritual enlightenment.
Moreover it was frequently reflected as an indication of superior Sufi morals when a
post was turned down in modesty.244
If someone is affiliated with external affairs like the peasants, that person
cannot know the affairs of the ulema. And even the ulema, if they are
affiliated with official positions cannot know the conditions of the ulema
of truth. For this reason, ulema who have reached the level of aynel
yakin mostly avoided externalities.245
Accordingly Bursevis comment on the resemblance of Polehood to the sultanate in
terms of the requirement of manifestation (zuhur) can be read either literally or as a
metaphor. If we are to engage in a literal reading then we should ask: How visible
was the Ottoman sultan in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries that
Bursevi associated him and the Pole with manifestation? The growing importance of

sheikhs prohibition of accepting offices, Bursevi had to decline the offer. In Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye,
Bursevi informs the reader about another offer made by Recep Paa, the governor of Damascus, for
him to become the mufti of the region which he denied in remembrance of his sheikhs words. Osman
Fazl wrote in his letter to Bursevi these words: A mfti can be one of the pious, but one of the pious
cannot become a mufti. (Mft takva ehli olur ama takva ehli mft olmaz) As quoted from
Tamaml-Feyz in Naml, smail Hakk Bursevi, p. 47; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, III, pp. 65-66
/Fol.240b-241a.
244

Bursevi praised Celvetis on account of their disregard for state or religious offices
suggesting that there were many sheikhs in the order who, like Hdayi, quit their jobs after enjoining
the Sufi path but not vice versa. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, III, p. 66; Eighteenth century court
poet Yusuf Nabi who wrote euologies for statesmen showed a similar concern in Hayr-i Name written
as an advice book for his son. In this text, Nabi constantly counseled his son not to occupy state
offices and depend on the salaries provided by the state. Obviously his personal experience had taught
him the instability of these offices since he was dismissed from office and sent to exile in Aleppo by
the grand vizier orlulu Ali Paa. It was only after the latter was dismissed from office and later
executed that Nabi could return to Istanbul under the protection of the new grand vizier Baltac
Mehmed Paa (the former governor of Aleppo). The best option was to become a professor (divan
hocal), indeed a very stable and favourable position in the eighteenth century.
245

Nitekim bir kimse ahval-i hariciye ile mukayyed olsa renberler gibi ol kimse ahval-i
ulemay bilmez. Ve ulema dahi ulum-i resmiyyeye mstegil olsalar, onlar dahi ulum-i hakikiyyeden
bihaberlerdir. Bu cihetten ulema-i aynel-yakin ekser-i zevahiri terk ettiler. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i
Recebiyye, p. 314 /Fol.47a.

99

the office of grand vizier can be found in the Asafname of Ltfi Paa, a grand vizier
himself, as early as the mid-sixteenth century. During the seventeenth and early
eighteenth centuries, the sultan lived mostly in seclusion in the palace and gradually
stopped attending the meetings of the imperial council while the office of the grand
vizier was transferred to a separate building outside the palace. Thus most of the time
the sultan was not available even to the grand vizier who communicated with him
through telhis (a condensed report) documents.246 The imperial ceremonies and
rituals which required the attendance of the sultan were not being performed until
1675. Indeed the residing of the court in Edirne for almost forty years during the
reign of Mehmed IV implied even a more retreated sultan away from the workings of
the state in the capital city. Upon his accession to throne, Mustafa II had indeed tried
to change this trend by attending the campaigns against Austria and organizing a
wedding ceremony for his daughter and a circumcision festival for his two sons.247
Nevertheless seventeenth and eighteenth centuries marked the retreat of the
sultan into the back ground of the political sphere and the political decision making
processes whereas the grand vizier gradually came to the front since the sixteenth
century. State affairs were handled mostly by the latter and the associated
bureaucracy. Particularly the Kprls who occupied the office of the grand vizier
from 1656 until 1683 without interruption and intermittently in the subsequent years

246

Ylmaz, The Sultan and the Sultanate, p. 274; Pal Fodor, Sultan, Imperial Council,
Grand Vizier: Change in the Ottoman Ruling Elite and the Formation of the Grand Vizieral Telhis,
Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 47, no. 1-2 (1994), pp. 67-85; Howard, Genre
and Myth, p. 151; Tezcan, Politics of Early Modern, p. 187.
247

Artan informs us about the lack of any circumcision or wedding ceremonies for seventy
fiver years until 1675. Artan, XVII. Yzyln kinci Yarsnda.

100

marked the way in which Ottoman governance took shape during this period. The
increasing importance attached to the position of the grand vizier in the writings of
Ottoman scholars since the sixteenth century was thus matched by a parallel
development in the Ottoman governmental system. Bursevi too was aware of the
increasing significance and visibility of the grand vizier since he dedicated Tuhfe-i
Aliyye to the grand vizier orlulu Ali Paa. He provided the etymology of vizier
suggesting that the term was derived from viz which meant heavy (sakil). This
meaning pointed to the function of the grand vizier as carrying the burden of the
sultan. Another possible root for the term was vezere, meaning refuge (melce): the
sultan took sanctuary in the grand vizier at times of hardship.248 Every creature was
in need of assistance, particularly the sultan because he was incumbent with
maintaining the order of the empire: If God wishes the well-being of the sultan, he
grants him an auspicious grand vizier so that with his precautions, consistency
prevails on earth.249 The grand vizier was expected to keep the sultan in the right
path with his shrewdness and diligence.250 Bursevi further justified the need for a
vicegerent (vekil) and assistant (muin) by providing the example of the prophet
Solomon and his vizier Asaf, a classic that has been referred to quite a number of
times in the nasihatname literature.251 A similar conceptualization regarding the

248

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, II, p. 197/ Fol. 216b.

249

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Recebiyye p. 417/ Fol.91b.

250

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, II, p. 197/ Fol. 216b.

251

Pes, her kar- kavi ehline Hazret-i Sleymann veziri Asaf gibi muin lazmdr. Bursevi,
Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, p. 371 /Fol.72a; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p. 166 /Fol.61b; Bursevi,
Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, II, p. 203/ Fol. 221b.

101

increasing significance of the grand vizier in directing state affairs was reflected in
Sar Abdullah Efendis nasihatname for Mehmed IV.252 He even advised the grand
vizier to take rather autonomous initiatives about oppressive governors without
waiting to inform the sultan about the issue or else he could be accused of
negligence.253
While the historical realities imply an increasingly more invisible sultan, the
visibility of the Pole who is likened to the temporal ruler by Bursevi in almost all
aspects, can be taken as an ideal feature which did not necessarily respond to the
historical conditions of the period. It could also be read as a metaphor, a literary
instrument Bursevi used to justify his case of womens exclusion from the ranks of
Polehood. Bursevi nevertheless acknowledged the possibility of womens attainment
of other positions within the saintly hierarchy.254 His reference to Rabia Basri,
famous saint of the eight century, in Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye is further evidence for his
recognition of the sainthood of women.255

252

Sar Abdullahs Tedbirn-Neeteyn fi Islahn Nshateyn, written during the reign of

Mehmed IV and presented to the sultan as a book of counsel, can be considered an example of the
political advice literature which feeds from the tradition of Ibn Arabis mystical interpretation of
political authority. The author himself makes it clear in the text that he was influenced by Ibn Arabis
Tedbirat- lahiyye and gives frequent references to his Fthatl Mekkiyye as well. In this work, Sar
Abdullah relies heavily on mystical concepts, titles and interpretations which were rooted in Ibn
Arabis conceptualization of the divine governance of the human kingdom which established a
parallel between the governance of the self and the governance of the empire.
253

Sar Abdullah Efendi, Tedbir`n Ne`eteyn fi Islah`n Nshateyn, pp. 64-65 /Fol.25a.

254

Bursevi, Kitabn-Netice vol. II, p. 241; Chodkiewicz, Seal of the Saints, p. 98.

255

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p. 169 /Fol. 63a.

102

Centrality of the Sultan and the Pole

In Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, Bursevi mentioned the grand vizier orlulu Ali Pala who had
invited him upon receiving the news of his arrival in Istanbul in 1710 before trotting
off for pilgrimage. The grand vizier was hoping to receive some advice from Bursevi
at a time when the Ottomans were at the verge of entering a war with Russia and
animosity against orlulu Ali Paa was gaining impetus due to his combatant stance
on the issue. According to Bursevi, the grand vizier asked him how he evaluated the
actions of the state and the future of their affairs. In response Bursevi advised the
grand vizier to focus on his heart and strengthen his piety because a persons heart
was like the sultan; if the heart was stout then the body had vigor (likened to
soldiers strength). This can indeed be read as a political metaphor which placed the
sultan at the center of government by claiming that if the sultan (and hence the grand
vizier as his vicegerent) abided by the rules of religion, his army would also act in
accordance to it and be victorious.
Use of the body as a political metaphor went back to prominent names such as
Plato, Titus Levi and Plutarch and has been elaborated many times throughout
medieval and early modern Europe.256 Aziz Al-Azmehs extensive research suggests
that the image of the sultan as the soul animating a body was abundant in the verbal
enunciations of power within many societies.257 The extensive application of the

256

The discourse of body politic basically defined the state as a corporate entity that resembled
the body, explaining social pathologies and political disorder also within a semi-medical discourse of
bodily illnesses.
257

Al-Azmeh, Muslim Kingship, pp. 16-17.

103

body analogy to the Sufi interpretation of politics (both at the individual and state
levels) had been effectuated by Ibn Arabi in his Divine Governance of the Human
Kingdom. According to his formulation, every body part corresponded not only to a
position in the hierarchical organization of worldly authority (political organization)
but also to a position within divine governance which was manifested in the
individual. Through this multi-tiered deconstruction of the body, Ibn Arabi defined
the esoteric meanings, qualities and tasks of every body part in relation to the higher
orders of worldly and divine governance. Hence the heart of the individual was
regarded first of all as the center, the capital city of the body; the souls abode. The
soul which Ibn Arabi claimed to be residing in the heart corresponded to the
ruler/imam as worldly authority and to the universal soul (ruh- klli) as the divinely
ordained vicegerent of God in the individuals being (which Ibn Arabi called the
human kingdom).258 In the manifest government, if the imam was pious (salih), his
people were also pious; and if he was corrupt (fasid), then his people were corrupt
too just like the bodys health depended on the condition of the heart.259 Keeping in
mind that smail Hakk Bursevi was an ardent follower of Ibn Arabi (whom he
frequently referred to as hatml evliya, the seal of the saints) and an interpreter of

258

Konuk, Tedbirat- lahiyye: Tercme ve erhi, pp. 105-108.

259

Ibid., p. 106; For the same conceptualization in Bursevi see, Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye,
p.244 /Fol.29a.

104

his works, it is plausible to believe that he adopted the body as a political metaphor
in the Sufi sense from Ibn Arabi.260
In the seventeenth century both Katib elebi and Sar Abdullah relied on a
similar body analogy in their explication of the Ottoman political system and society,
manipulating the teachings of Ibn Arabi and Ibn Khaldun. For example Katib elebi
(1609-1657), famous Ottoman intellectual coming from a scribal back ground,
related the ulema to the heart. Just as the heart pumped blood to every cell in the
body to keep it alive, the ulema maintained the continuity and enlightenment of the
society by providing knowledge to people. For him the grand mufti as the highest
rank of the ulema corresponded to perceptivity, and intellect meant power.261 Thus
he imputed extreme importance to the role of religious scholars whereas the sultan
was interestingly reduced to the nefs (ego) which indicated a temporal and ephemeral
existence that must be domesticated. It was the nefs (sultan) who virtually controlled
the body (empire), but the person needed intellect (the ulema) to tame the nefs and
put him on the right path. Katib elebis vision had repercussions in the realities of
the period when the power of the grand mufti had witnessed a considerable increase.
It was in the hands of the grand mufti to issue fetvas that could dethrone and
enthrone sultans as in the cases of Osman II and Mustafa II, putting him in a position

260

For more examples of Bursevis use of the body analogy see Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye,
p.225 /Fol.18a; Veysel Akkaya smail Hakk Bursevi Kabe ve nsan Tuhfe-i Ataiyye (Istanbul: nsan
Yaynlar, 2000), p.94 /Fol.28a; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, II, p. 120-121 /Fol.148a-b.
261

Katib elebi, Dsturul Amel li Islahl-Halel, trans. Ali Can (Ankara: Kltr ve Turizm
Bakanl Yaynlar, 1982), pp. 22-23, p. 29.

105

of considerable political authority.262 However it is more plausible that Katib elebi

used the analogy to point out the importance of the role of the ulema in guiding the
sultan.
On the other hand, for Ibn Arabi, Sar Abdullah and Bursevi alike, heart was
the seat of the soul hence the throne/residing place of the sultan. Their politicomystical vision placed the ruler at the centre: at least at the symbolic level of royal
power, it was him who maintained social and political order by reaching out to every
person through a hierarchically organized system of vicegerents and officials similar
to the heart pumping blood to every cell in the body. The maintenance of the
functioning of the society was thus affiliated with the ideal of an absolutist central
government. When Bursevi recognized the executive powers of the grand vizier, this
was only because of his position as the vicegerent of the sultan and hence did not
necessarily arise from an acknowledgment of his position as an autonomous will to
decision-making but from his direct appointment by the central authority.263 The
imagery of the sun and the moon was illustrative in defining the relationship between
the two: justice and benevolence were disclosed by the grand vizier (moon) only
through their reflection from the sultan (sun).264 By the early eighteenth century, this
proposition did not imply a historical reality though. The sultans executive powers

262

Tezcan, The Second Ottoman Empire, pp. 46-78; Ylmaz, Osmanl Devletinde
Batllama, pp. 7-9.
263

Bursevi pointed out the concurrence of the orders of the grand vizier and the sultan. This is
why obedience to the grand vizier directly indicated obedience to the sultan. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i
Aliyye, p. 222 /Fol.16a; Sar Abdullah did open some space for autonomous action on behalf of the
grand vizier though.
264

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye, p. 222 /Fol.16a.

106

(and even that of the grand vizier) were indeed considerably limited: a figure like the
grand mufti Feyzullah Efendi could indeed appoint and dismiss grand viziers
bypassing the sultan.265 Bursevi made clear in his tuhfes several times the superiority
of the grand vizier vis--vis the grand mufti due to his proximity to the authority to
rule (symbolized in the sultan). Therefore it was not the grand mufti but the grand
vizier who was recognized as the aide of the sultan and his right hand in directing the
affairs of the state.266
Similar to the centrality of the sultan, the Pole, by virtue of his pivotal position
in the universe, was situated at the center. He was of equal distance to every being
and conceived all directions as one.267 He was thus conceptualized as the heart of the
world from which all of Gods blessings fell upon earth. No matter where the person
of the Pole was situated on earth in bodily terms, Bursevi claimed that he was still
spiritually bound to Mecca.268 As the spiritual stronghold of the Pole, Mecca
(particularly the Qaba) was the pivotal center of the world, the heart towards which
all men steered for. Likewise, the heart of the man was his Qaba, the place from
which his spiritual prowess emanated.269

265

Zilfi, The Politics of Piety, pp. 215-220

266

The fact that Bursevi disliked the extensive influence of eyhlislam Feyzullah could have
been another factor in his attitude towards the superiority of the grand vizier and indeed he has
reflected on the issue in relation to the persecution of the grand mufti in Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye: Bursevi,
Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, II, p. 203/ Fol.221b; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye, p. 226 /Fol.18b.
267

Bursevi, Kitabn-Netice vol. I, p.1.

268

Chodkiewicz, Seal of the Saints, pp. 94-95.

269

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p. 133 /Fol.43b; Bursevi, Kitabn-Netice vol. I, p. 341.

107

Unity of Rule

Bursevi justified the absolute oneness and uniqueness of the sultan following the line
of Ibn-i Arabis vahdet-i vcud doctrine: unity of the ruler corresponded to the unity
of the Pole and to the unity of God.270 The existence of the great sultan who
exercises authority over the external world necessitates oneness; the existence of the
caliph, being the kutb- vcud and the pivot of the permanence of the world, who
exercises authority of the inner aspect of man necessitates oneness as well.271 In
every age, there could be only one kutb- vcud who inherited the spiritual legacy of
the Prophet Muhammad (the eternal universal Pole) in totality.272 Since there was
only one God, his names and attributes was believed to be perfectly manifest in only
one person. All the other ranks of sainthood within the saintly hierarchy would
emanate from this unique person at the top and would inherit a smaller portion of the
Muhammedan truth depending on their spiritual stations.273 Indeed the process was
quite similar to the ordination of state offices in relation to the sultan as has been
described above.

270

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, II, p. 201/ Fol.219b.

271

Bursevi, Kitabn-Netice vol. I, p. 367; for other examples of Bursevis commentary on the
kutbl-aktab, see Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, II, Fol.194b-195a.
272

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Ataiyye, p.143 /Fol.70a; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p.135 /Fol.44b;
Bursevi, Kitabn-Netice vol. II, p. 159; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye, p.213 /Fol.11a.
273

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i meriyye, p.74; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye, pp. 214-215 /Fol.11b.

108

Just as a multiplicity of gods and Poles would cause disorder; multiplicity of

sultans was believed to breed chaos.274 Again the concern was on the maintenance of
order and stability. Thus any aggressive action or war for the establishment of this
unity such as fratricide was considered legitimate based on the hadith of the prophet
which permitted the killing of one of the imams if there were two contenders to
throne.275 The sultan would also be rewarded in the afterlife (mecur) for calming
down sedition (teskin-i fitne). Although the practice of fratricide in the early
eighteenth century had become a mere historical fact due to the transformed
succession policy since the time of Ahmed I, Bursevi still legitimized the practice by
providing the example of Selim I who killed his brother Korkud and later on
supposedly claimed: I split the domains between the two of us: I took the earth,
giving the underground to him.276

Caliphate and Ottoman Superiority Contested

The unity of the sultan did not imply a universal claim to sovereignty as was the case
during the reign of Sleyman I though: Bursevi indeed acknowledged the fact that
the Ottoman claims to caliphate as the control over Muslim communities were by
then ineffective. He found an ideal form of universal rule in the reigns of Sleyman I

274

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye, p. 213 /Fol.10b.

275

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i meriyye, p. 80; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye, p.213 /Fol.10b.

276

Biraderimle memleketi hisseleip yerin zerini bana ve altn ona verdim dedi. Bursevi,
Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, pp. 303-304 /Fol.42a; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i meriyye, p. 80; For the changes in
the succession policy in the seventeenth century see Tezcan, The Second Ottoman Empire, pp.46-78.

109

and Alexander the Great which existed no more due to the existence of many
countries (memleket) which were ruled by their own monarchs.277 Even in the
sixteenth century (after the conquest of Egypt in 1517) when there were some efforts
on behalf of the sultan and the grand mufti Ebussuud to claim the title caliph for the
sultan as the protector of the holy law and the Muslim community, caliph remained
one of the rather infrequently used titles of the sultan. Ottoman sultans lack of
Kureishi descent and the fact that the era of righteous caliphs was over centuries ago
were issues rasping the efficacy of the title for purposes of claiming political power.
At a time when mystical concepts and sensibilities were penetrating into the
political discourses of the religious intelligentsia in the sixteenth century, the title
started to connote a different meaning, that of the caliph as a vicegerent of God.278
Both Sar Abdullah Efendi and Bursevi referred to this usage within the religiomystic discourse which claimed Adam to be the first caliph of God: Adam was imam
and caliph by virtue of the manifestation of Gods divine names in his being.279 All
human kind as successors of Adam was expected to fulfill their roles as the caliphs of
God on earth by aiming to become perfect men. The title caliph thus did not
necessarily refer to being a bloodline successor of the prophet or political authority
over the whole Muslim community but to the position of every man vis--vis God
which could be improved by emulating the morality of the prophet. This was a rather

277

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye, p. 213 /Fol.10b-11a.

278

Ylmaz, Sultan and the Sultanate.

279

Sar Abdullah, Tedbir`n Ne`eteyn fi Islah`n Nshateyn, p. 36/ Fol.1b.

110

perilous connotation of the term since it expanded the application of the title caliph
to virtually everyone and carried the potential to challenge the authority of the sultan.
Bursevi used the title interchangeably for the sultan and the poles and
emphasized the importance of paying allegiance to them both. Caliph was a term
loaded with various meanings. In one of the cases Bursevi used the title in reference
to the sultan, he suggested that the sultan was the inheritor of the prophet
Muhammad only in form (surette varis-i nebevi) since he occupied the rank of the
manifest name (seccade-niin-i mertebe-i ism-i zahir). Here he equated the caliph
with mere rulership. The poles on the other hand were the vicegerents to the prophet
in spiritual aspects (manada vekil-i Ahmedi) meaning they were following the path of
the prophet by obeying to the rules of the sharia and paying attention to Sunna.280 By
virtue of his being the caliph as an insan- kamil both vis--vis God and the prophet
Muhammad, the pole was perceived as being devoid of any sort of oppression unlike
the sultans and rulers. Thus the true, ideal caliph was reflected in the person of the
pole who was above all a provider of justice and balance.281 And contrary to the
limitations put on the Ottoman sultans claim to universal sovereignty by historical
realities, the range of the Poles authority expanded not only to the non-Muslim
subjects of the empire but also to the lands of the non-Muslims.282
Although it was not seen as a necessity for sainthood (and particularly
polehood), many Sufi sheikhs who operated within the Ottoman lands indeed made a

280

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p. 125/ Fol. 38b.

281

Bursevi, Kitabn-Netice vol. I, p. 2; vol. II, p. 35; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, pp. 345346/ Fol. 60b-61a.
282

Bursevi, Kitabn-Netice vol. II, p. 329.

111

claim to genetic association with the prophet Muhammad as sayyids (descendants of

the prophets family).283 The Pole could thus merge the spiritual/moral aspect of
caliphate which Bursevi called esoteric piety (batni takva) with the genealogical
aspect namely belonging to the Kureishi descent (Haimilik).284 Bursevi too claimed
descendance from the prophet through his fathers lineage, but the document
ratifying his familys position as sayyids was lost when the house in which his
parents lived before his birth was burnt down. He suggested that this was the reason
why he could not wear the green turban which was exclusive to the sayyids as a sign
of social distinction, but had to wear a white one.285 He also suggested that his sheikh
Atpazari Osman Fazl was a sayyid. The position of sayyid was not simply a signifier
of spiritual and social distinction based on a genetical prophetic inheritance; it also
had economic and political implications in the Ottoman context where sayyids were
granted many concessions and subsidies.286 Thus, the position of the Sufi sheikh as a
saint (regardless of his position as the pole) and a sayyid indicated a two-tiered
prophetic inheritance: one at the level of blood ties and one in terms of morality and
knowledge. Thus, while constructing the genealogies of their orders Sufis paid heed

283

For the implications of this position and its institutionalization in the Ottoman Empire, see:
Rya Kl, Osmanlda Seyyidler ve erifler (stanbul: Kitap Yaynevi, 2009); Hlya Canbakal, The
Ottoman State and Descendants of the Prophet in Anatolia and the Balkans (c. 1500-1700), in
Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 52 (2009): 542-578.
284

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, III, p. 89/ Fol. 266b.

285

Naml, smail Hakk Bursevi, p. 35.

286

Kl, Osmanlda Seyyidler ve erifler, pp. 96-103.

112

to trace their roots back to the Prophet through the caliphs Abu Bakr or Ali by way of
blood ties or spiritual inheritance.287
In another instance, Bursevi used the term Gods caliph on earth (halifetullah
fil alem) to designate the sultans duty of jihad on account of his position as the
owner of sword (sahibs-seyf), the ability to exercise power on earth.288 And this
sword has passed on from the Messenger of God to the Caliph Omar and other
caliphs and from them to rulers. In that respect, rulers are the inheritors of the
Prophet.289 Reflecting on the Ottoman past, he claimed that other Muslim rulers had
to surrender to the Ottoman sultan because the latter was the servant of the holy cities
(hadimul-haremeyn), a title which was formulated during the reign of Selim I. On
the other hand the capture of the lands and properties of the non-Muslims (ehl-i
harb) and the taxes extracted from them were also justified: According to Bursevi,
the Ottomans were only taking back what initially belonged to the Muslims.290 Thus
the Ottoman polity was still represented by Bursevi as the protector of Islam against
non-Muslims and the establisher of order on earth even after the long and mostly
unsuccessful wars with the Holy Entente in the late seventeenth century.
Bypassing the facts which made the caliphate impractical for political
purposes, Bursevi aimed to illustrate the glory and superiority of the Ottoman
sultanate by relying on a mystical explanation. He claimed that the real caliph was

287

On early hagiographical information regarding the representation of saints as geneaological

heirs to prophets see: Renard, Friends of God, pp. 68-70.
288

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye, pp. 200-201/ Fol. 3b.

289

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, II, p. 187/ Fol. 207b.

290

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye, p. 213/ Fol. 10b-11a.

113

expected to be the Meccan sheriff since Kureishi descent was one of the
requirements of the caliphate.291 However although they were not of Kureishi
descent, the Ottoman sultans were still privileged (rhan) over the Meccan sheriffs
by virtue of their overwhelming power (kuvvet-i kahire).292 Bursevis comments
were rather defensive particularly in Tuhfe-i Aliyye where he targeted those who
claimed Meccan sheriffs to be the real sultans.293 The Meccan sheriffs according to
him were incapable of protecting themselves because Mecca and Medina were at the
level of essence (zat) which implied invisibility and mystification. The essence
derived its power in the temporal sphere from the divine attributes (sfat). In political
terms, this meant that the Ottoman sultanate was incumbent with fulfilling the
manifestation of these attributes and derived its power from the inclusiveness of the
divine names it manifested on earth. The most significant of these names was
Rahman, meaning the merciful provider of all creatures needs. Indeed this depiction
of the sultan was the same with the function of the Pole: that of providing people
blessings and abundance.294 Bursevi resembled the position of the Ottoman sultan
vis--vis Meccan sheriffs to that of ensar, those people who helped Prophet
Muhammad during his migration from Mecca to Medina.295 This way, the Ottomans

291

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i meriyye, p. 87.

292

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, II, p. 120/ Fol. 148a-b.

293

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye, p. 212/ Fol. 10a-b.

294

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p. 118/ Fol. 35a.

295

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, p. 415/ Fol. 91a; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, II, p. 121/
Fol.149a-b; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye, p. 212/ Fol. 10a-b.

114

were conceptualized as superior in terms of political and military power and were
held responsible for the protection of the most sacred domains of Islam: Mecca and
Medina. Therefore, it was also important that they paid heed to the safekeeping of
pilgrimage routes: obviously this comment was also related to Bursevis own
experience of bandit attacks on the way to Mecca.296
Istanbul was also conceptualized as being superior to Mecca since it was the
place where the sultan, the chief judges (sadaret-i sadreyn) and the grand mufti,
namely the high ranking officials of the state resided. In Tuhfe-i Aliyye, Bursevi also
utilized slambol to indicate the superiority of Istanbul among Islamic cities on
account of accommodating not only the Ottoman sultanate but also the Pole.297
Indeed both Hdayi and Osman Fazl whom he regarded as Poles had resided in
Istanbul, and it is highly likely that Bursevi decided to return to Istanbul after he was
granted Polehood in Damascus for this reason. He probably believed that the Pole, by
virtue of his indispensable position vis--vis the sultan, had to remain close to the
court.
Hence on the one hand Bursevi continued representing the Ottomans as
superior to other polities in time and space by suggesting the Ottoman Empire to be
the last of the states (dvelin ahiri), the sum of all sultanates (saltanatn ecma) and
the most powerful in all aspects (her cihetten akvas).298 Having witnessed the loss of
great amounts of Balkan territories with the Treaties of Karlowitz (1699) and

296

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye, p. 209/ Fol. 9a.

297

Ibid, p. 213/ Fol.11a.

298

Ibid, p. 209/ Fol. 8b-9a.

115

Istanbul (1703), Bursevi still portrayed the Ottoman power and community (kuvvet
menea) which he addressed as the side of Islam (taraf- slam) as perfect (berkemal). This approach is most evident in Tuhfe-i Aliyye which was written for the
grand vizier orlulu Ali Paa in 1708, two years before the official declaration of
war against Russia. Indeed about the previous defeats of the Ottomans, Bursevi
suggested that if those in charge of the army had abided by the rules of religion and
acted in piety, then the enemy soldiers would not be able to resist (mukavemet) the
Ottomans for so long and they would not be allowed (msaade-i adu) to approach.
He thus defined the failure of the army in the constant wars against the Holy Entente
(to which he had attended twice) between 1683 and 1699 in religious terms. It was
the weakness of religion (zaf- din) which caused the authority figures to mislead the
army when the Ottomans were still capable of gaining victories.299 On the other
hand, he considered it better to convoke the names of God through the practice of
dhikr and go on pilgrimage than to undertake jihad in order to worship God.
Providing the example of the prophet Muhammads emphasis on peace, Bursevi
mentioned the superiority of peace over war since the latter, no matter what its
reasons, led to the killing of Gods servants (ibadullah) and the destruction of Gods
cities (biladullah). Although it is possible to read these comments of Bursevi as a
sign of his support for the imperial ambitions of the grand vizier which indeed
caused his downfall in 1710, Bursevi did not exclaim an immediate wish for jihad. It
is true that he legitimized Ottoman conquests and imperial ambitions by claiming
that during the time of Adam people used to engage in agriculture (ekincilik) but the

299

Ibid.

116

age in which he lived was the age of war: What is most virtuous for this ummah is
jihad and gaza.300 And the ricall-gayb (men of the hidden realm, saints) helped
Ottomans on the battleground. However it would be more accurate to suggest that he
rather invited the grand vizier to gauge the necessity of war since jihad was
legitimate only when the purpose was to honor (izaz) the religion of God and to sack
those who attacked the servants of God.301 Thus, in times of peace it was not
legitimate to wage war unless the other party broke the peace treaty.302
While Bursevi continued to represent the Ottoman sultanate as superior to
other polities in military power, the historical realities of the period had become far
too harsh to overlook. Bursevi did show signs of his acknowledgment of the
vincibility of the Ottomans in a work which he wrote ten years later. Approximately
four months before he finished writing Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, the war against Habsburgs
and Venetians (1715-1718) had ended with the Treaty of Pasarowitz causing the
Ottomans to lose lands in the Balkans, particularly in Serbia. The fact that Bursevi
subtly commented on this defeat in a section about the city of Edirne needs further
elaboration. He suggested that this city by virtue of the divine name it manifested,
hafiz (protector), was important for the maintenance of the boundaries of Islamicate
territories (hudud- slam muhafaza) since the old times when it was the capital city
(dars-saltanat). Edirne had indeed served as the capital city of the Ottomans until
the capture of Istanbul in 1453, and after that its affairs were not handed over to a

300

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i smailiyye, p. 168-169 /Fol. 26b.

301

Ibid, p. 163/ Fol. 24a.

302

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye, p. 209/ Fol. 8b-9a.

117

separate governor but directed from Istanbul. In the earlier periods, the city was very
much associated with the idea of ghaza due to its location at the frontier and in the
later periods, the western campaigns of the army continued to start from here.303
Cemal Kafadars analysis of a passage from Saltukname (fifteenth century
hagiography of Sar Saltuk, a gazi dervish) is telling about the prominence attributed
to the city of Edirne for the purposes of gaza:
Whoever wishes to conquer (all of) the land of Rum, must be stationed in
Endriyye. And whoever wishes to destroy the infidels of the enemy,
should remain in Edirne since it is the hearth of the ghazis. There is no
better place for gaza than that.304
This view of Edirne as the frontier for gaza seems to have remained vivid in
Bursevis mind even after the expansion of Ottoman territories in the Balkans. Just
after identifying Edirne as the frontier of religion (serhadd- din), Bursevi seems to
have made a sly reference to the Ottoman-Austrian war which ended with Treaty of
Pasarowitz by claiming that in 1717/8 (H. 1130) obscure (mulak) events took place.
It is interesting that Bursevi used the words galak (meaning a door latch) and mulak
(whose literal meaning is locked/closed) most probably in reference to the position of
Edirne not only as a door to the Balkans but also as a place of refuge both for
retreating armies and people running away from Austrian conquests in Beograd and
Timisoara (Temevar) among other places. Furthermore he provided two verses from
the Quran to comment on the Ottoman defeats in a concealed manner. The verses
indicated surrender to Gods will about the loss of territories: The One Who is

303

Artan, XVII. Yzyln kinci Yarsnda Edirne. About the significance of Edirne for gaza
as represented in Saltukname, see Aydoan, An Analysis of the Saltukname, pp. 92-108.
304

As quoted in Kafadar, Between Two Worlds, p. 148.

118

Sovereign of Dominion, You give dominion to whom You will and You tear away
dominion from whom You will. (Ali mran 3/26) and Have they not considered
that We approach the earth, reducing it from its outlying parts? (Rad 13/41)305
Bursevis approach to the Ottoman defeats and the loss of territories in the Balkans
in Tuhfe-i Recebiyye was rather fatalistic in the sense that he contemplated them as a
sign of Gods appreciation and maybe even punishment for irreligiosity. What is
most necessary is surrender and silence and resignation to the will of the Immortal
One. God is the one who expands and contracts.306 By comparison with the fall of
the Umayyad rulers and Abbasid caliphs, Bursevi acknowledged the place of the
Ottoman Empire in history not as an invincible super power but as another state
subject to defeats and losses.
Carl Schmitt argues that in every age the metaphysical imagery drawn out by a
polity reflects the way in which they conceptualize their political organization.307
This chapter has shown that Bursevis conceptualization of the Ottoman political
system, with a focus on the sultan, was very similar to his conceptualization of
cosmic order and spiritual authority. Thus the sultan and the Pole were defined in
similar terms as the two authorities which worked to maintain order on earth and
protect the foundations of religion. Furthermore his reliance on the vahdet-i vcud
doctrine and the divine names of God in explaining the operation of the Ottoman
state worked to explain the changing nature of the Ottoman political organization in

305

The Sublime Quran, 6th ed. trans. Laleh Bakhtiar. (Chicago: Kazi Publications, 2009) p. 59,
p. 291; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, p. 414/ Fol.90b.
306

Evceb olan teslim ve skut ve tevekkl-i Hayy- la-yemut itmekdir. Vallahl-KabizlBasit. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, p. 414-415/ Fol. 90b-91a.
307

Carl Schmitt, Siyasi lahiyat (Ankara: Dost Kitabevi, 2005), p. 49.

119

the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. In an age which he perceived as a
period of degradation and decline, the theory of the Pole was utilized by Bursevi not
only as a literary trope in the formulation of an utopic form of authority and worldly
order but also as a vehicle to claim his position within the society as an authority
figure.
Bursevis discussions regarding Polehood and sainthood were both an
intellectual endeavour within the tradition of the cult of saints but also a political
claim which makes sense only if handled within the context in which Bursevi
composed his texts. As shall be seen in the following chapters, his constant claims to
saints superior form of knowledge, association with prophethood, role as mediators
between God and the people, significance for political authority figures and the
maintenance of the state and competency as religious educators is far from an
abstract theoritization of the spiritual realm when coupled with his constant
criticisms regarding the conditions of the Ottoman society in the late seventeenth and
early eighteenth centuries.
Texts written by and about Sufi sheikhs in the Ottoman context were fraught
with references to their virtues as the poles of the period. Sometimes it was other
people who attributed this quality to some particular sheikh, as exampled by
Bursevis constant attribution of polehood to his sheikh despite the latters denial.308
He claimed that Osman Fazl had served as a pole and the polehood of Hdayi was

308

Bursevi referred to his sheikh as Seyyidl-aktab Seyyid Fazl lahi Hazretleri Bursevi,
Kitabn-Netice vol. I, pp. 429-430; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p. 147 /Fol.51a, p. 164 /Fol.60b.

120

acknowledged by everyone upon general consensus (bil-ittifak).309 It was quite

common for the disciples of each order to tag their sheikhs as poles sometimes to
legitimize their claims to political authority as in the case of the Bayrami-Melamis in
the sixteenth century, but mostly as an indicator of spiritual distinction and religious
authority. Figures like Niyazi Msri and smail Hakk Bursevi did not hesitate in
exposing their status as the pole through their texts rather pompously despite the fact
that the position, at least in theory, was one which needed to be hidden from the
public eye in modesty: And even the saints do not know each other. Even if he
knows his sainthood, he does not boast with it since he is at the station of piety, awe,
solemnity and glory.310 However, theory and practice did not go hand in hand. The
discourse on polehood and sainthood was thus subject to political instrumentalization
even if it did not always indicate a non-conformist approach to political authority.
Whereas some Bayrami-Melamis figures in the sixteenth century relied on the same
discussions in an oppositional manner to oppose the authority of the sultan, Bursevis
use indicated a conformist approach which did not counter political authority
outwardly but sought to find ways of consolidating power with it within a given
order.
Thus by the eighteenth century, use of the term seems to have gained widespread acceptance and visibility not only among Sufi circles but also among other
intellectuals such as poets, historians and administrators who were more or less

309

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Ataiyye, pp. 88-89/ Fol.23b; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, II, p. 179
/Fol.200b.
310

Bursevi, Kitabn-Netice vol. I, p.327.

121

acquainted with the mystical terminology of Sufism. The expansion of the coverage
range of the title pole parallels the development in the changing meanings attributed
to titles such as imam and caliph which could be used interchangibly to imply both
temporal and spiritual authority figures particularly since mystical concepts derived
from Sufism started to be used to endow the sultan with symbolic religious authority
from the sixteenth century onwards, implying a rapproachment in the
conceptualization and percetion of worldly and religious authority.311 Bursevi used
the titles imam and caliph to refer both to the sultan and the pole; not to mention the
common use of the term caliph to refer to the position of each man vis--vis God.312
The transformation observed in the increasing inclusiveness of such titles of
temporal and spiritual authority might be explained by a process in which an
understanding of absolute authority both in the political and spiritual spheres started
to be challenged. The political authority of the sultan was challenged by the rise of
diverse groups in the political arena until he was reduced to only one of the many
political actors. The process was reciprocated in the spiritual world by the reduction
of kutb- vcud to a mere rank of symbolic value while expanding the area of
application of the title kutb to a wider range of saints. The transformations in the
conceptualization of political authority was thus paralleled by the changing
theroretization of spiritual authority. The process had political implications since
although defined within an invisible hierarchy of saints, the position of the saint had
become increasingly more demystified and visible in the public and political spheres.

311

Ylmaz, Sultan and the Sultanate.

312

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p. 124 /Fol.38b; Bursevi, Kitabn-Netice vol. I, p.172.

122

It was not only that many Sufi sheikhs made a claim to polehood but they did it
outwardly in the public and through their texts, transforming a position of spiritual
authority and an abstract concept of ideal authority whose most important aspect was
its confidentiality to outward temporal authority not only in religious but also in
political matters.

123

CHAPTER IV
MAINTENANCE OF ORDER

This chapter scrutinizes the ideal form of governance according to smail Hakk
Bursevi through an analysis of some of his religio-political counsels. Focusing my
attention on the recurring motifs of religious balance, justice, discipline, rights and
duties and conformity to authority figures, I firstly aim to contextualize Bursevis
concrete propositions for the restoration of order in the empire. Secondly, at a more
abstract level, I try to reveal the main lines of Bursevis political thought (if not
philosophy), particularly his views on the ideal state, which was fed from an existing
pool of political wisdom literature stretching back to the ancient times and Sufi
ethics.

A Balanced Interpretation of Religion: Sharia and the Divine Truth

The remedy for the destruction of the order of the world was defined as such by
Bursevi:
A balanced purpose and a steadfast ground are needed which will
endure with the rules of the sharia on the outside and be permanent in
the presence of God on the inside until the temporal world reaches
consistency with its surface and the spiritual world finds fortification
with its inner dimensions so that appearance and meaning are saved
from disorder.313

313

Binaen ala-haza bir mutedil amd ve bir muhkem sened gerektir ki zahiri adab- er ile
kaim ve batn huzur-i Hakkta daim ola ta ki ehl-i mlk onun zahiriyle kvam ve ehl-i melekut batn
ile istihkam bulup suret ve mana ihtilalden halas ola. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, pp. 361-362/
Fol. 68a-68b.

124

The previously mentioned two groups ehl-i inkar (those who deny the esoteric
aspects which is epitomized in Sufi teachings and practices) and ehl-i ilhad (those
who deny the exoteric aspects which are the sharia rules) represented the two
opposite poles of the zahiri-batni dichotomy and illustrated for Bursevi the malice
of takings things too far in one or the other direction. He thus propagated in his texts
a balanced and moderate religious vision which merged sharia and the Sunna of the
prophet with Sufism. When he emphasized the significance of being balanced
(mutedil) in religious matters for the maintenance of social order, Bursevi was not
only echoing the themes of moderation and composure prevalent among the Sufis for
centuries but he was also in line with many of the seventeenth century intellectuals
such as Katib elebi and Sar Abdullah who were responding to social
transformations the empire was going through within a discourse of balance. Bernd
Radtke reports of a similar concern for moderation and balance in social and
religious life in the writings of some eighteenth century Arabic speaking Sufi
scholars as well.314
In his Mizanl-Hakk Katib elebi propounded that balance between two
extreme poles (ifrat and tefrit) was the resolution to the social, political and
economic problems the empire was facing: he thus struggled to establish a middle
ground between the religious views of different groups through a rational analysis of

314

Radtke, Sufism in the 18th Century, p. 337.

125

the ideas proposed by all parties.315 For him imbalanced behavior was not only an act
that disturbed social order and disobeyed the law but it was also an irrational one.
This is why he criticized Kadzadelis for their insistence on changing the age-long
practices of people by tagging them as bidats. He believed that the forceful
transformation of peoples habits was close to impossible hence the Kadzadelis were
not being rational in their arguments and actions.316 While Katib elebi emphasized
the importance of the intellect/comprehension (symbolized in the grand mufti),
Bursevi highlighted the significance of divine inspiration, revelation and gnosis
(symbolized in the Sufi sheikh) in revealing the divine truth and defining the rules of
the sharia, claiming the words and deeds of the saints as constituting Shari rules as
well. In any case the criteria for any kind of action (political, social, economic or
personal) were defined through a discourse of balance established by shariaabidance.
In Bursevis accounts there was an application of the discourse of balance in
the definition of an ideal form of religious life similar to that expressed by Ibn
Arabi: it was necessary for individuals to base their actions in the rules established
by the Quran and the hadith to keep themselves in balance.317 Bursevis discourse of
balance revealed itself mostly through the emphasis he placed on combining sharia
with the divine truth (hakikat). While the knowledge of sharia provided the Sufi with
the authority to interpret divine law (as Bursevi did in many of his texts) like a jurist,

315

Katib elebi, Mizanl-Hakk fi htiyaril-Ehakk (Istanbul: Milli Eitim Basmevi, 1972), p.

316

Ibid., p. 41.

317

Konuk, Tedbirat- lahiyye: Tercme ve erhi, p. xxiv.

68.

126

the proximity to divine truth indicated the superior level of the Sufi sheikh in
religious matters and morality vis-a-vis other religious scholars. To exemplify his
stance on the issue, he related a very interesting dream he saw while writing Tuhfe-i
Recebiyye and then provided also his own mystical interpretation of it. In this dream,
he saw the daughter of the prophet Muhammad, Fatima, falling into a river and then
coming out wounded. Then he informed the prophet about the situation of his
daughter to which the prophet responded by smiling and marrying her daughter to a
judge named Musa Efendi. Later, Bursevi saw Ahmed III318 kissing the hand of a
hafz (someone who reads the Quran out loud by memory) and cry. According to
Bursevis interpretation, this dream implied the connection and coalition between the
divine truth and the sharia. While Musa Efendi symbolized the prophet Moses who
abided by the rules of the sharia, Fatima symbolized the gnosis/truth of Islam which
has been manifested in the prophet.319 Fatimas fall and coming out wounded must
have implied the inability of gnosis to stand strong without the application of the
rules of the sharia hence the decision of the prophet to bind both. Bursevi elucidated
the second part of the dream as Sultan Ahmed III indicating the soul and hafz
indicating the heart. He suggested that the power of the memory (hafza), which is an
important quality for the hafiz since he memorizes the whole of Quran, depended on
the heart and started discussing the significance of the dhikr in enhancing the

318

He did not necessarily say Ahmed III but rather Ahmed Han. Considering the fact that
during the composition of this text, Ahmed III was on the throne, it is plausible to assume that Bursevi
was referring to him.
319

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, pp. 368-369 /Fol.71a.

127

memory for Muslims.320 Bursevi did not provide the reader with a more detailed
interpretation of the second part of the dream, however following the tracks of the
clues he has hinted, it is possible to speculate about what this dream could have
implied for Bursevi. Sultan Ahmed IIIs display of respect and abidance (manifest in
the act of kissing his hand) to a hafz indicated his veneration of the Quran and dhikr
which most Sufis regarded as its essence. The symbolism surrounding the sultan of
the time and the hafiz indicated bowing down of the temporal ruler to the spiritual
authority of the Sufis.
Bursevi narrated another vision which occurred to him around fifteen years ago
while he was writing his commentary on the Masnawi of Mevlana (that he finalized
in 1116/1704) where he was given a golden scale with which he had to weigh a
golden ring and another object. He interpreted this dream also as a sign for him to
understand how significant it was to keep both aspects of religion, sharia and hakikat,
in balance.321 In Tedbirn-Neeteyn fi Islahin-Nshateyn, Sar Abdullahs322

320

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, p. 369 /Fol.71b.

321

Ibid.

322

Sar Abdullah Efendi was trained under the patronage of Halil Paa and had been in
relationship with different Sufi sheikhs (Bayrami-Melami sheikhs dris-i Muhtefi, Hac Kabai and
Beir Aa; Celveti sheikh Hdayi and the Mevlevi sheikh Ankaravi) since his youth. He paid
allegiance to all three of the Bayrami-Melami poles while receiving most of his training from dris-i
Muhtefi. When Halil Paa was appointed grand vizier in 1616, Sar Abdullah attended two of his
expeditions in the east as his scribe (tezkireci) and upon the death of Mehmed Efendi, replaced him as
the nianc of the army. It is known that Halil Paa had a close relationship with Aziz Mahmud
Hdayi since he had taken refuge in his lodge upon being attacked by the palace circle for leading the
army to failure in the expeditions against Iran. It is suggested that during his stay at the lodge in 1626,
Halil Paa was accompanied by Sar Abdullah who was dismissed from office as well. During their
stay at the lodge, Sar Abdullah must have become a disciple of Hdayi. He returned to office only in
1637 and until 1658, served at several positions in the scribal hierarchy as reisl-kttab kaymakam,
muhasebeci (accountant) and mukabeleci. During and after this period he composed many works
related to Sufism. Mehmed Sreyya, Sicill-i Osmani vol III (Istanbul: Kltr Bakanl ile Trkiye
Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakf , 1996), p. 420; slam Alimleri Ansiklopedisi vol. XVI, p. 166;
Ayvansarayi Hseyin Efendi, Ali Sat Efendi and Sleyman Besim Efendi, Hadkat'l-Cevmi:

128

reference to the scale of the sharia (mizan- er) indicated the establishment of social
order and just rule through the implementation of divine law by the sultan and his
vicegerents. Particularly the sultan was expected to be balanced not only in his
personal life but also in all his actions regarding the administration of the empire:
appointing statesmen, collecting taxes, leading people to war, etc.323
The choice to start off his Tuhfe-i Aliyye which was addressed to the grand
vizier orlulu Ali Paa with an explication of the Fatiha verse through a discussion
of the srat- mstakim (the right path) was a conscious choice on behalf of Bursevi
to emphasize his definition of orthodoxy which implied a balanced provision of
religion without any deviations. In the governance of the empire everything that
transgressed the boundaries established by the sharia was forbidden, but the
provisions of the sharia had to be strengthened with gnosis and esoteric knowledge
merging the path of the fetva (tarik-i fetva) with the path of the piety (tarik-i
takva).324 One aspect of this counsel was the increasing bindingness of the sharia on
the authority of the sultan, and another was the politicization of religious discourse
through a discussion on orthodoxy.
Since the mid-sixteenth century both the grand mufti and the jurists
interpretation of the divine law had gained significance particularly with the
specialization of the office of fetva. The grand mufti and his clerks could issue
hundreds of fetvas everyday which aimed at the organization of social and economic

stanbul Cmileri Ve Dier Dini-Sivil Mimri Yaplar, ed. Ahmed Nezih Gelitekin (Istanbul: aret
Yaynlar, 2001), pp. 313-314; pp. 612-613.
323

Sar Abdullah Efendi, Tedbir`n Ne`eteyn fi Islah`n Nshateyn, p.75 /Fol.32b

324

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye, p. 198-199/ Fol.2a.

129

life in the empire. The seventeenth century was also the period in which the fetvas of
grand muftis provided legitimacy for political action such as the enthronement and
dethronement of sultans, not to mention the aristocratization of the high-ranking
ulema positions. Thus the office of the grand mufti had become a prominent locus of
power whereas the influence of the Sufi sheikhs did not have an official, legal
backing as such. By the early eighteenth century, the Ottoman ulema became
stabilized through a hierarchical organization as the official representatives of Sunni
Islam bypassing the claims of Kadzadelis and the Sufi sheikhs. On the other hand
Sufi orders, despite their gradual institutionalization under the Ottoman state were
not directly involved in the state apparatus. Although Bursevi acknowledged the
authority and necessity of the grand mufti (ultimate symbol of the path of fetva), he
suggested that the sole provision of laws was not sufficient for the establishment of
order. Particularly when the grand mufti was incapable of solving matters, he was
expected to consult a competent sheikh.325
In Bursevis enunciations of the necessity to combine the path of fetva and the
path of piety and the necessity for the grand mufti to consult with the Sufis in
controversial matters, one can see beyond a discourse of balance, an attempt to assert
the position of the Sufi sheikh as a legitimate commentator on religious orthodoxy.
Particularly since the late sixteenth century, many Sufi sheikhs like Hdayi by way
of their approachment to the religious and educational culture of the ulema,

325

Bursevi legitimized obedience to the fetvas issued by the grand mufti by claiming his orders
to be the enactments of the will of God: in reality it was not the grand mufti but God who issued these
fetvas, and every fetva was subject to the prophet. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, III, p. 52 /Fol.224a225a.

130

established themselves as legitimate commentators on issues regarding

jurisprudence. Did their claims have enforcement on the provision of law? It is
difficult to tell, but they at least participated in the discourse of sharia and Sunna
abidance at the social, political and intellectual levels. There were times at which
Bursevi took this approach one step further and claimed that the words and deeds of
the saints constituted shari rules as well, challenging the authority of the jurists as the
official representatives of Sunni Islam particularly on discussions regarding Sufi
practices.
One of Bursevis advices indicated that the grand vizier was responsible for the
appointment of righteous/just (adil) and competent individuals for positions of
religious authority such as the mufti, judge, medrese teacher, preacher, imam, etc.326
Indeed in Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye it was the sultan who was held responsible for the
appointments of religious and state offices. This is another sign of Bursevis
recognition of the increasing prominence of the grand vizier in directing state affairs.
Based on the Quranic verse, Truly God commands you to give back trusts to the
people (Nisa, 4/58) Bursevi commented on the temporary nature of offices which
had to be granted in a meritocratic fashion.327 The reason for Bursevis exclusive
focus on religious officials might have arisen both from his lack of knowledge about
the administrative and financial offices and also from his tendency to base decline
and disorder on religious decay. Although Bursevi did not solely refer to sultans
piety and morality and pointed out the significance of religious institutions in the

326

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, pp. 383-384 /Fol.78a-78b

327

The Sublime Quran, p. 98; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye, p. 204/ Fol. 5b.

131

improvement of the Ottoman society, he still pursued a line of thought which focused
on individuals instead of institutions both in finding the reasons for corruption and to
provide solutions for it. This was a readily available and ancient discourse which was
shared by Sar Abdullah in his Tedbirn-Neeteyn as well. This tendency to focus
on the morality, religious piety and competency of individuals continued to be
prevalent in the works of nasihatname authors from various backgrounds throughout
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries despite novel attempts mostly initiated by
statesmen at conceptualizing decline and its resolutions at the institutional level
through a historical and administrative approach.328

Justice and Discipline

In Bursevis tuhfes there was a frequent recourse to the concept of justice which was
deeply entrenched in the discourses of Ottoman intellectuals who were acquainted
with the concept through the Indo-Persian advice literature.329 He claimed that all of
the prophets, saints and rulers were incumbent with justice and mercy; with justice
there was order in the universe, without it disorder prevailed.330 According to Linda
Darling, in the early sixteenth century all around the Middle East, works focusing on

328

Ylmaz, The Sultan and the Sultanate, p. 2.

329

Halil nalck, State, Sovereignty and Law During the Reign of Sleyman in Suleyman the
Second and His Time, eds. Halil nalck and Cemal Kafadar (Istanbul: Isis Press, 1993), pp. 72-75.
330

Her ne kadar enbiya ve evliya ve mluk gelmiler ise cmlesi adl insafla mebus ve
memurlardr ki, adl ile nizam- alem ve hilafyla ihtilal hasl olur. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i smailiyye, p.
169 /Fol.27a.

132

the concept of justice started to circulate at an unprecedented level.331 Previously in

the Ottoman context, works dealing with political authority in the form of mirrors for
princes were mostly reproductions of classical works such as Kelile ve Dimne,
Kabusname and skendername.332 Justice was conceptualized as one of the
constituent elements of the Ottoman state which many Ottoman scholars found its
ideal reflection in the reign of Sleyman I (as illustrated by the epithet
Lawgiver).333 It meant for Bursevi moderation (vasat), equilibrium (itidal) and
the maintenance of the preexisting order of things which have come to be regarded as
their ideal forms.334 Bursevi borrowed the concept to comment on the ideal form of
rule and social order: Some of the viziers have said that what holds this government
together is oppression. Then they were killed. Forasmuch, all institutions are
maintained by justice, not oppression.335 Providing the example of Anushirvan
(Chosroes I, Sassanid ruler of the sixth century) who was frequently mentioned by
Ottoman authors in reference to his just rule, Bursevi pointed to a notion of justice
which transgressed boundaries of religion and was conceptualized as a universal
truth by which all rulers were expected to abide by. One of the first authors to voice
the prominence of justice over faith was Nizaml-Mlk who claimed in his

331

In her article Darling specifies the similarities between the political discourses which
circulated in Europe and in the Middle East. Darling, Political Change and Political, pp 507-508.
332

Pal Fodor, State and Society, Crisis and Reform in 15th-17th Centuries Ottoman Mirror for
Princes, in In Quest of the Golden Apple (Istanbul: Isis,), p. 26.
333

nalck, State, Sovereignty and Law, p. 69

334

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, II, p. 182/ Fol. 203a.

335

Baz vzeradan mesmu idi ki, bu daire-i devleti zulm tutar demi idi. Sonra katl olundu.
Zira cemi-i daireleri muhafaza eden adldir, zulm degildir. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i smailiyye, p.169
/Fol.27a.

133

Siyasetname written in the eleventh century that rulership would raim with
faithlessness but not with injustice.336 On the other hand, Bursevi defined justice also
as one of the stations of faith: The attribute of justice which is one of the greatest
stations of creed, is required for those who have faith.337 It was a significant aspect
of the Sunna of the prophet as well: The one who is just, revives the prophetic
tradition with his justice.338 Thus the relationship between justice and faith (and
hence reward in the afterlife) was very much emphasized by Bursevi who claimed
that in the afterlife, just rulers would be enthroned (clus) on minbars made out of
light (nurdan minberler).339
While in Bursevis commentaries, the attribute of justice remained rather
abstract, for Sar Abdullah Efendi it entailed concrete administrative actions such as
the merit-based appointment of state officials, sufficient provision of their salaries,
and surveillance of administrators, control over the tax collection process and the
personal acquaintance of the sultan with the socio-economic conditions of the
people.340 The difference may have arisen from Sar Abdullah Efendis more
elaborate knowledge regarding administrative issues due to his long tenure as a
scribe. A similar concern for the necessity of such state control mechanisms to

336

Fodor, State and Society, Crisis and Reform, p. 25.

337

Pes ehl-i imanda sfat- adl gerektir ki uab-i imandan ube-i azimedir. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i
Recebiyye, p. 302/ Fol.41b.
338

Adil olan kimse adliyle ihya-y nebevi etmi olur. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, II, p.
182/ Fol. 203a.
339

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye, p. 207/ Fol. 7b.

340

Sar Abdullah Efendi, Tedbirn-Neeteyn fi Islahn-Nshateyn, p. 289-290/ Fol.36a.

134

prevent oppression had been expressed in Machiavellis Prince written more than a
century before, pointing out to the possible similarity in European and Ottoman
conjunctures and available political discourses in which commentators voiced their
concerns.341
The opposite of justice, oppression, was basically defined as the transgression
of someone elses right (mteaddi)342 and it would be punished even if the oppressor
was a Muslim. One finds a similar description of justice by Evliya elebi: it
indicated everyone occupying his assigned place in the society and being careful not
to violate the boundaries of social stratification. This view of justice as the
preservation of existing social boundaries was indeed based on the Aristotelian
tradition of political philosophy.343 In Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, Bursevi explicitly defined
oppression (zulm) as placing an object somewhere apart from its original location,
indicating a transgression of established boundaries. The act implied
deviancy/aberration (inhiraf) for it pulled the actor to either one of the two extreme
poles of ifrat and tefrit.344 Whomever slid to each one of these extreme poles was
defined as a non-believer (kafir), hence defining the maintenance of order also
through religio-mystical terms.345 It was incumbent on the political authority which
was held responsible for the establishment of justice to maintain this order. If there

341

Darling, Political Change and Political, p. 510.

342

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, p. 389 /Fol.80a.

343

Hagen, Afterword: Ottoman Understandings, p. 240; Darling, Political Change and

Political, pp. 514-515.
344

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, II, p. 179 /Fol.200b.

345

Ibid, p. 182/ Fol. 203a.

135

is the justice of sultan, even if there is no harvest and mill, there will still be
abundance in that place. But there can be no fertility with oppression, even if there is
no defect in agriculture and farming.346 And when people died of famine and
sickness arising from oppression, then there could be no state to organize their social
life. Thus justice established not only the social and political but also the natural
order of things. Aziz Al-Azmeh has reflected on the almost universal nature of this
attribute which can be found in the political expressions of different polities.347
The justification for the sultan came not so much from his personality or
divinity but from his function which Bursevi defined as the maintenance of religion
(ikamet-i din). The sultan was expected to accomplish this purpose by arousing
feelings of fear in the people so that they would withdraw from transgressing their
boundaries (teaddi) and feel obliged to respect the rights of others. The sultan was
thus compulsory (vacib) because he acted as a vehicle for people to fulfill their
required religious and social duties and hence for the establishment of order.348
According to Sar Abdullah as well, it was incumbent on the ruler as the caliph to
protect the boundaries of sharia (hudud- eri muhafaza) and to use his domains
(mlk) at the service of religion not vice versa (mlk era hadim ide) since sharia
and justice were needed to replace the provisions of nature with the provisions of
divine law.349

346

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, III, p. 76/ Fol. 252b.

347

Al-Azmeh, Muslim Kingship.

348

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye, p. 211/ Fol. 9b.

349

Sar Abdullah Efendi, Tedbir`n Ne`eteyn fi Islah`n Nshateyn, p. 42 /Fol.7b, p. 45

/Fol.9b.

136

The sultan could choose to manifest justice either as wrath through his left
hand the janissaries or as grace through his right hand the grand vizier just as God
disclosed himself both through wrath (celal) and grace (cemal) on earth. The left
hand worked to discipline (tedib) and punish (tazir) whereas the right hand
disclosed benevolence (ihsan) and blessings (inam). 350 Could Bursevis
representation of the grand vizier as operating though beneficence be a reflection of
the changing trends in vizieral appointments? In the eighteenth century, increasingly
more people coming from bureaucratic backgrounds were occupying the office of the
grand vizier while in the previous centuries grand viziers came mostly from military
backgrounds as devshirmes. Itzkowitz uses the title efendi-turned-pasha in describing
the phenomenon of grand viziers coming from governor backgrounds.351 To illustrate
the docility of the grand vizier Bursevi provided the example of Moses (Musa) who
was austere like a razor (ustura) and his brother and vizier Aaron (Harun) who was
clement.352 However in Tuhfe-i Aliyye, an earlier work dedicated to the grand vizier,
in a rather contradictory manner, Bursevi conceived of the vizierate as vicegerency
by sword (mebus bis-seyf) and defined the responsibility of the vizier as

350

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i smailiyye, pp. 168-170 /Fol. 16b-27a.

351

Norman Itzkowitz, Eighteenth Century Ottoman Realities, Studia Islamica 16, (1962): 73-

352

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, III, pp. 198-199/ Fol. 217b-218a.

94.

137

suppressing rebellion and establishing order by way of violence.353 To legitimize

disciplinary procedures, Bursevi relied on the Sunna and the Quran:

Since the disciplining of people is a fundamental aspect of the sharia,

the janissary order is the most powerful column of the state. And the
fundamentality of discipline and governance is revealed in the verse
Get up and warn (el-Mddessir, 74/2). Forasmuch, the path of the
Prophet is maintained first with intimidation because heralding is built
upon it. And there can be no heralding with Heaven unless faith is
formed.354
In the second chapter, I have already detailed the implications of vicegerency by
sword for imperial ambitions, so in this section the focus is on the implications for
the Ottoman society. Application of the sword, a symbol which sacralized
disciplinary violence for the enactment of divine law on earth, was one of the
prevalent motifs of Bursevis political vision. Although it was better to show mercy
(rahmet), the rulers were compelled to undertake the disciplining (tedib) of the
Ottoman subjects who did not abide by the rules of the sharia (i.e. did not practice
the obligatory salaat and drank wine).355 This was not an uncontrolled violence; its
limits were indeed defined by the rules of the sharia. In his texts, Bursevi also drew
the boundaries of legitimate violence as an interpreter of the divine law: peoples

353

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye, p.200 /Fol.3a-3b; His usage of the term mebus bis-seyf for the
grand vizier could also be related to the position of the grand vizier as the commander of the Ottoman
army. For the significance of the grand vizier in military affairs: Ylmaz, Osmanl Devletinde
Batllama, p. 5.
354

Ve tedib-i nas erde asl olmala yenieri oca erkan- devletin akvas oldu. Ve tedib
siyaset asl olduu Kalk, uyar ayetinden mefhumdur. Zira Cenab- Nebevi ibtida inzar ile kaimdir.
Zira tebir, inzar zerine mebnidir ki iman husule gelmedike Cennet ile tebir etmek de hasl olmaz.
Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, III, p. 79/ Fol. 255a.
355

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, II, p. 187/ Fol. 207b; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, III, pp.
79-80/ Fol. 255a.

138

bones would not be broken and their flesh would not be cut. Just like everything,
disciplinary mechanisms also had to remain moderate. Indeed the last section of
Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye consisted of such Shari provisions to be applied for the
disciplining of people. For example the punishment of ksas (retaliation) was
necessary for it would serve as an incentive for others not to commit similar
crimes.356 It was not only the sultan and the grand vizier but also the governors,
judges and amirs who were responsible for implementing the shari in order to
establish the order of the cosmos (nizam- alem) and correct the conditions of the
world (ahval-i alemi tadil).357 The aim was not so much to persecute the disobedient
but to domesticate them through particular methods and to literally put them in their
place (icra-i hudud) so that they do not dare transgress the established social and
moral boundaries.358 Thus exercise of violence to subdue the ones who were
regarded as subverts and unruly subjects was inherent to the definition of justice and
order: indeed Bursevi defined the people of his day as in dire need (muhta) of such
disciplinary provisions because of their proximity to the apocalypse.359 This was the
kind of thinking that underlined Bursevis legitimization of the persecution of the

356

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i smailiyye, pp. 163-164/ Fol. 24a; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, III, P.
74/ Fol. 250b.
357

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, III, pp. 74-75/ Fol. 250b-251a.

358

Ibid., p. 90/ Fol. 267b.

359

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, II, p. 187-188/ Fol. 207b-208a; In Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye,

Bursevi made detailed juristic discussions not only about crimes and their required punishments but
the organization of social relationships: Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, III, pp. 106-107.

139

Sufi sheikhs Hamza-i Bayrami and Olan eyhi on account of their disregard for the
sharia and transgressive heretical (melahide) activities.360
Still, one should be careful when analyzing Bursevis reliance on legitimate
violence as a response to the changing circumstances of the empire. Obviously his
proposals supported the repression of social and political issues, but this does not
necessarily imply the proposition of a clearly defined out reform agenda on behalf of
Bursevi. Indeed many nasihatname authors who came up with solutions to what they
regarded as the decline of the Ottoman Empire were not necessarily active
reformists. Supporters of the neo-sufi thesis claim a new reformist direction in Sufi
thought (particularly in the Middle East and Northern Africa) starting from the
eighteenth century. They claim this novel Sufi vision to be concerned with the social
and moral revival of the society by way of political and military activism and the
application of the sharia and the Sunna of the prophet. Clearly the ideas proposed by
Bursevi for the betterment of the society do fit in this scheme, however it is difficult
(at least at the moment) to identify him as a reformist. During his early tenure as the
vicegerent of his sheikh Bursevi seems to have put his heart in commanding the right
and forbidding the wrong by taking harsh measures such as bastinado (falaka) and
the frequent admonishing of the people. However in his later life Bursevi emerges as
a more subtle man who refrained from open criticism and frank religious or political
activism in the public sphere, directing his attention to writing.361 The problem with
placing him in the neo-sufi arguments is that Bursevi was a man who had grown up

360

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye, p. 209/ Fol. 8b.

361

See Chapter Two on Bursevis life.

140

in the second half of the seventeenth century, and many of his ideas were influenced
by long transformations which were rooted in the previous decades and even
centuries. He was shaped more by their long-term dynamics: the public discussions
regarding religious innovation, constant wars at the European front, factionalization
in the political sphere, dethronements of sultans, increasing social mobility,
economic hardships and most importantly the impact of Sunnitization (a process
which had gained impetus during the sixteenth century rivalry with the Safavids) on
the Sufi orders. Without taking into account all these aspects and the seventeenth
century increase in political treatises by Ottoman scholars from diverse backgrounds,
it is not possible to contextualize smail Hakk Bursevis intellectual world and
particularly religio-political commentary. The neo-sufi arguments fall short in that
respect, namely they attribute exclusive and transformative characteristics to
eighteenth and nineteenth century Sufism neglecting historical and intellectual
continuities with previous periods.

Sultanate as a Trust: Discourse of Rights and Duties

According to Bursevi, not only the sultan but all statesmen were conceptualized as
occupying offices entrusted to them (dnyevi emanet).362 The entrusted nature of
their offices indicated temporality and responsibility. In Tuhfe-i Aliyye, Bursevi made
reference to the duties incumbent on the sultan and the statesmen: The sultan,
viziers, governors, judges, etc. were all expected to oversee the deeds of the Muslims

362

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, III, p. 86/ Fol. 262b.

141

as if they were their own personal affairs. Serving the people was so important and
even sacred that the rulers were advised not to focus on extra devotional practices
when they were needed for governance. They would be rewarded for their service in
the afterlife. Working for someone else is one of the greatest [forms of] proximity
[to God].363 Furthermore, he provided examples from history and the Quran to
illustrate his point. Khdr had earned eternal life by helping the soldiers of Alexander
the Great find water. Besides, according to the story narrated in the Quranic verse
Ta Ha (20/9), Moses had heard the words of God and was granted prophethood when
he approached a burning tree at night to take a firebrand for his household (ehl-i
beyt).364
Sar Abdullah also counseled the sultan to be aware of the significance of his
rank as the temporal ruler and abide by the rules and obligations which this rank
stipulated. Rulers were disclosed on earth as temporal caliphs only by the will of God
hence their positions were entrusted to them.365 His use of the title halife-i sahib-i
emanet (caliph as the owner of the sultanate as a trust) made reference to the fragility
of his position as the ruler and his restricted discretionary capacities; he was thus
reduced to a symbolic channel held responsible to enact the orders of God in the
governance of the empire while in reality it was the jurists who interpreted and

363

Say fi hakkil-gayr azam- kurubattandr. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye, pp. 201-202 /Fol.

3b-4a.
364

Ibid; Has the converstaion of Moses approached you? When he saw a fire, he said to his
people: Abide! Truly I observed a fire so that perhaps I would bring you some firebrand from there or
I may find guidance at the fire. When he approached it, it was proclaimed: O Moses! Truly I I am
your Lord! Sublime Quran, pp. 360-361.
365

Sar Abdullah Efendi, Tedbirn-Neeteyn, p.42/ Fol.7a.

142

judges who enacted divine law. This fact made the sultans position as the ruler a
fragile one, indeed a position which had repercussions in the historical realities of the
seventeenth century when the sultans were dethroned by coalitions of soldiers and
grand muftis one after another. Scholars like Hseyin Ylmaz and Baki Tezcan have
analyzed these dethronements as constitutionalist tendencies in the early modern
Ottoman period.366 The pervasive discourse of rights and duties which obliged the
rulers to act in certain ways and oversee the needs of the people found in the literary
works of this period may be conceived as a reflection of these tendencies. Again Sar
Abdullah argued that once deposed, the sultan could no longer benefit from the glory
attributed to him on account of his superior rank since this rank was not inherent to
his existence. On the contrary, the ranks of the saints as spiritual caliphs were
perpetual because they have been attained by personal struggle and training.367 If the
ruler managed to act in accordance with the requirements of this rank, then he could
expect to find peace both in this world and afterlife.368 A strong emphasis on the
sultans responsibility of serving the good of the people, protecting their rights,
fulfilling his responsibilities along with a focus on justice established by the rule of
the sharia were recurrent themes in the text.369

366

Ylmaz, Osmanl Devletinde Batllama; Tezcan, The Second Ottoman Empire.

367

Sar Abdullah Efendi, Tedbir`n Ne`eteyn, p. 40-41 /Fol.5b-6a.

368

Ibid., p. 37 /Fol.2b, p. 40-41 /Fol.5b.

369

Ibid, p. 41-42 /Fol. 6b; emanet-i hyanetinde olan ibadullahn ahval ile mukayyed ola.
Ve anlar err-i kavim ve srat- mstakim zre isbat ede. p. 53 /Fol.16a, p. 71 /Fol.30a.

143

Conformity and the Absolutist Ideal

Submission to the will of the rulers whom Bursevi regarded as having complete
sovereignty over the people was one of the constituent elements of faith and essential
for the maintenance of social and political order. Therefore, disobedience to sultans
commands and prohibitions implied swerving from the path of the true faith and had
to be punished with death. The killing of rebels was justified by the wish to keep the
status quo and the order of the society intact, or else opposition to political authority
would breed disorder (ihtilal-i alem). Similarly a disciple was expected to completely
submit himself to the will of his sheikh, if he tended to disobey him, he would be
banned and would not be given further education unless he repented.370 By
formulating obedience to the leaders of a society, be it the religious leaders such as
the ulema and the sheikhs or the temporal ones such as the sultan and the statesmen
as one of the many pillars of faith which a proper Muslim was expected to pay
allegiance to, Bursevi reproduced in religious terms the conformist political
discourse of complete obedience to authority figures. Since political authority was
defined in religious terms and the maintenance of order was sacralized, obedience to
figures who represented this authority was represented as a matter of true faith:
Whoever denies the rulership of the sultan becomes a heretic.371 And those who

370

Biri dahi ull-emre itaat etmektir. Ull-emr, mluk ve meayih ve ulema ve zhhaddr.
Zira mluk, cmle-i reayaya hakimdir. Mahkuma gerektir ki, hakime muti ve mbayaasnda dahil
ola. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i smailiyye, p. 134/ Fol. 8a.
371

Ve bir kimse imamat- sultan inkar eylerse zndk olur. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye, p.
220/ Fol. 15a.

144

obeyed him would be saved. To justify his conformist claims, Bursevi has frequently
relied on the hadith of the prophet which ordered people to obey their leaders.372
What were the possibilities of social change and political action in the face of
unjust rulers or religious authority figures who were regarded as aberrant then?
Nowhere in his life did Bursevi stand as a man of radical or oppositional political
action. Throughout his texts, he emphasized the significance of obedience to the
leaders of a society for the maintenance of social order although he criticized their
disregard for religion. In contrast to his sheikh Atpazari Osman Fazli who was sent to
exile in Magosa because he was quite outspoken on political issues, Bursevi was
rather solicitous in disclosing his views with regard to the workings of the Ottoman
state publicly. One can gain some insight as to what to do in the face of injustice
according to Bursevi through the bits and pieces of information scattered throughout
his works. For example one of the pillars of faith Bursevi mentioned in Tuhfe-i
smailiyye was helping the tyrant through the Devil (nusret ala-blis). This help
could be granted by giving advice to the oppressive person or speaking softly to
dismantle the influence of devil on him. It was also considered important to give
advice to sinners (fask) so that they withdrew from their deviant actions and served
as examples to be shunned.373
Bursevi reminded the reader that when a person was treated in an unjust
manner, according to the sharia, he had the right to appeal to the sultan by filing a

372

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, III, p. 90/ Fol. 267b.

373

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i smailiyye, p. 135 /Fol.9a.

145

complaint or appearing before the court to make his case heard.374 But to what extent
could these resolutions for injustice be legitimately applied to oppressive authority
figures? In Tuhfe-i smailiyye, in a short passage Bursevi pointed out the importance
of telling words of justice to an oppressor sultan instead of being a flatterer. This for
Bursevi was the biggest of all jihads. Hence the prominence of giving
advice/speaking righteous words not only to common people but also to political
authority figures was once again justified. One should not prostrate ones self before
the grandees just to gain their favor and worldly rewards and should have enough
courage to disclose their wrong deeds according to the formula commanding right
and forbidding wrong.375 Still, none of this advisory activity yielded a manifest
disobedience to authority; conformity to authority figures was taken as one of the
building blocks of social order. Only when a rulers orders transgressed the
boundaries of the sharia and brimmed over to irk (denial of God) were the people
granted the possibility of resistance based on the hadith: There is no compliance to
any creature on the issue of disobedience to God.376 However it would be farfetched to claim that this declaration constituted a legitimate ground for dissident
political activism on behalf of Bursevi whose dominant view on political authority
almost always promoted submission and moderation.

374

ihtimal ki o kimse mazlum ola. Bu surette o mazlum iin sultana ve hakime kp

tezallm etmek merudur. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, p. 106 /Fol.9b.
375

Cihdn efdali, ol kelime-i haktr ki, sen onu cevr ehli olan sultana veya muahezesinden
havf ettigin kimseye syleyesin, mdahene eylemeyesin. Feemma sen aks edersen, dnya iin ekabire
secde klarsan, nerede zaif ve abal var ise onu incitirsen, vay haline! Bursevi, Tuhfe-i smailiyye,
p. 159/ Fol.22a.
376

Allaha isyan hususunda mahluka itaat yokdur. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p. 127/

Fol. 40b.

146

In that respect, Bursevis views were substantially similar to those of the

Moroccan mystic Ahmad b. Idris (d. 1837) who repeated the necessity not to bow
and scrape before oppressive rulers in the texts he composed in the late eighteenth
and early nineteenth centuries.377 On the other hand, Sar Abdullah opened up some
space for resisting the sultan when the latter made a decision deemed inappropriate
by the sharia: for example, in the time of war, the leader of the soldiers was granted
the right to disobey the sultans orders (if they were not suitable to the sharia) even if
he was to be punished for this action.378 Viziers and local leaders also had the right to
warn the sultan if he inclined to disobey the divine law. This line of thinking
indicated that sultanic laws and orders were not regarded as binding as the shari laws
by Sar Abdullah. Such a strong sharia-consciousness which subjected the sultan to
the authority of a transcendental law which was defined by jurists could point to the
influence of sixteenth century transformations which brought about the rising
significance of jurists law vis--vis sultanic law (kanun).
Bursevi tried to prove the need for political authority in several ways. One was
a more or less self-referential claim: In mystical terms, the sultans rank was
equivalent to that of God as defined by vacibl-vcud, meaning that it was simply
impossible for him not to exist.379 Interestingly Bursevi also provided a legitimizing
factor by referring to the animal world: even the cranes and the monkeys designated
a leader for their communities, thus it was only normal that humans required a ruler

377

Radtke, Sufism in the 18th Century, pp. 337-338.

378

Sar Abdullah Efendi, Tedbir`n Ne`eteyn fi Islah`n Nshateyn, pp. 83-84 /Fol.38b.

379

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p. 166 /Fol.61b.

147

too.380 The hadith which necessitated the appointment of an amir if there were three
people on a journey was another indicator of the significance of the leader for the
maintenance of order among creatures who lived in communities. When one gives
and the others receive commands, the order gently remains.381 Bursevis not so
infrequent efforts in proving the necessity of the sultan and constant focus on the
prominence of obedience can be taken as an indication of the rising tendency to
question the authority and legitimacy of the sultans power in the eighteenth century
Ottoman society. Particularly the serial dethronements of sultans through a series of
janissary revolts and the fetvas issued by the grand muftis in the seventeenth century
must have been a significant factor in the increasing visibility of such discussions in
the writings of Ottoman scholars. In fact the legitimacy of the sultan and the
dethronements seem to have occupied Bursevis mind since in Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye he
openly stated that it was not rightful to depose the sultan by way of violence: When
there is discontent about the sultan, it should be removed and rehabilitated with no
assault on the person of the sultan.382 The sultan, by virtue of the greatness of his
name had the right to rule over all other names (manifested by statesmen), appoint
and dismiss people and give commands according to his will. However, those of rank
(ehl-i meratib) could not pass judgments on the sultan. Bursevi further added that no
pole was ever dismissed from office since the time of Adam, again correlating the
position of the pole with the sultan. While making these pro-sultan comments it is

380

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, III, p. 88/ Fol. 265b.

381

Kimi emir ve kimi memur olunca, nizam- hal rfkan ziyade olur. Ibid.

382

Sultan hakknda ihtilaf vaki' olsa def' ve slah edip kendine taarruz olunmamak gerekir.
Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, II, p. 172/ Fol. 193a-193b.

148

highly likely that Bursevi had the janissary uprisings which resulted in the killing of
Osman II and brahim I in mind. He was frankly against the killing of sultans while
justifying the persecution of other statesmen (such the grand mufti Feyzullah or
grand viziers) was justified indicating the special status he attributed to the sultan.
Maybe the whole creation is maintained with the name of the sultan whose
existence is necessary for the commoners and the privileged ones. Then why do they
curse him and demand his destruction?383
Was Bursevi criticizing the rebellious janissary soldiers whom he regarded as
the foundation of the Ottoman state? Despite his absolutist views and conformist
attitude towards political authority, in his tuhfes Bursevi did not direct any frank
criticism to the army. To the contrary he exalted the janissaries and their association
with Hac Bekta.
The sultan commands the right and forbids the wrong in whatever fashion he
wishes. Indeed when he ordered something licit (mbah) it was necessary to obey
the sultan since such an order would lead to righteousness (salah). Here Bursevi
made reference to the permission granted by Mehmed II for the communal Kandil
salaats, a practice fervently criticized by the Kadzadelis throughout the seventeenth
century.384 Indeed as mentioned in the section about Bursevis life, in the early
eighteenth century a dervish was killed by probably some Kadzadeli followers
during a Kandil prayer at the Ulu Mosque in Bursa. An important aspect of Bursevis

383

Ve sultan ki vcudu avam ve havassa lazm, belki cemi-i mevcudat onun ismiyle kaimdir,
nice sebb olunup vcudun zevali talep olunur? Ibid, p. 194/ Fol. 214a.
384

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye, p. 220/ Fol. 15a.

149

political vision is that he expects unquestioned obedience to political authority. Thus

even if the sultan was insufficient in terms of morality and religiosity, one still had to
obey him since it was extremely difficult to find a ruler who merged political
authority with perfect morality.385 This seems more like a pragmatic approach which
accepted the inadequate religiosity and character flaws of the existing sultans and
pointed to the suppression of non-conformity as a solution to the empires problems.
Although the pious ruler continued to be the ideal one for Bursevi, the instable
governments and the uprisings of the period in which he lived must have caused him
to take refuge in and promote the idea of absolute conformity to the sultan despite his
character. The way in which Bursevi represented political authority and its ideal form
in his texts through counsels, stories, titles and concepts was very much related to his
perception of the power to rule, symbolized in the sultan and the sultanate, as the
maintainer of order on earth. This was an ancient attribute of ideal rulership which
had been in circulation among different polities for centuries.386 The exercise of
authority was sacralized by virtue of its integration to the cosmic order and
organization of chaos into coherence by way of keeping the temporal world under
constant surveillance of the norms of the spiritual world. These norms were defined
by Bursevi in terms of a religious orthodoxy whose boundaries were defined by the
rules of the sharia on the one hand and the knowledge of the divine truth on the
other. Hence order and justice were frequently defined through the relationship
between the sacred and the profane; an imbalance in their affiliation bred disorder

385

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, III, p. 90/ Fol. 268a.

386

Al-Azmeh, Muslim Kingship, p. 18.

150

not necessarily in abstract but historical terms. The state was incumbent with
maintaining this religious balance through the exercise of justice, use of disciplinary
mechanisms when needed and ensuring conformity to authority figures.

151

CHAPTER V
A DECLINE PARADIGM FOR THE SUFI SHEIKH: REASONS OF DECLINE

In Bursevis elaboration of the decline paradigm, there were two reasons for the
disorder arising from the circles of rulers and their vicegerents. First one was the
deniers (ehl-i inkar) who repudiated the realities of the Sufi path and the Sufis;
second was the deviants (ehl-i ilhad) who transgressed the boundaries of the sharia in
mystical experiences.387 Statesmen by being in proximity to either one of these
groups (instead of the true friends of God) were leading the empire into disorder and
corruption; the issue was one of misguidance. Statesmen were heedless to the
counsels of the Sufis unlike the previous times: The conditions of this epoch are so
dreadful that in his whole life even if one provides seventeen counsels [to the rulers],
it is considered too much, and even they are not fulfilled according to ones wish.388
In the majority of his religio-political comments in his tuhfes, Bursevi refrained
from directing criticisms towards the sultan. His only mistake was conceptualized as
lending credence to people who misguided him instead of submitting to a competent
Sufi sheikh. On the one hand, such an approach reduced the sultan to a mere puppet
whose decision-making process was severely limited by the intrusion of different
actors. Indeed, this was very much reflective of the political environment of the
period since by the early eighteenth century the grand vizier and the grand mufti

387

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, p. 360 /Fol. 67b.

388

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, III, p. 66 /Fol.241b.

152

(particularly Feyzullah Efendi) virtually held almost all of the authority to direct state
affairs in their hands. Not to mention the pressure put by the palace aghas and the
janissaries on political issues. The enthronement of sultans at a very early age and the
changes in the succession policy in the seventeenth century had also created new
opportunities for royal women, specifically the queen mothers, to interfere in state
affairs acting as the sultans regents. It is thus difficult to speak of the sultan as an
autonomous agent, and Bursevi resented the rising influence of diverse groups in the
political sphere: a sign of his absolutist ideals.
Bursevi paid attention not to make frank comments on the actions of statesmen
either; his remarks remained either generic or implicit. This was probably a
conscious decision on his behalf to stay away from politics not to face the destiny of
other famous sheikhs like Niyazi Msri and his own master Atpazari Osman Fazl
who were sent to exile on account of their fortright political expressions in the
seventeenth century. A resenting passage on commanding right and forbidding
wrong from Tuhfe-i smailiyye might help us understand the rather prudent approach
of Bursevi while commenting on issues of decay. Particularly in our times, it is not
possible to open ones mouth and say a word to the people and the grandees since
they not only reject your advice but also show hostility. Maybe they send you to
exile and maybe they kill you.389 It is very likely that while writing this section,
Bursevi had the exile of his sheikh in mind as well as the problems he had with the

389

Hususan ki bizim asarmzda, az ap halka ve ekabir-i nasa sz syleyecek hal

kalmamstr. Zira kabul etmediklerinden ma-ada, buz u adavet dahi ederler. Belki nefy-i beled ve
belki katl eylerler. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i smailiyye, pp. 139-140 /Fol.11a-11b.

153

local religious authorities during his six years of stay in Skopje (1675-1681) as the
newly made and inexperienced vicegerent to his sheikh.390

Religious Scholars as Ehl-i nkar

Philosophers: Denial of Sufi Epistemology

Bursevis criticisms regarding the ulema, although generic in style, were widespread.
His texts were fraught with remarks and criticisms about what he perceived as the
deviations and incompetence of the Ottoman religious scholars: they were indeed the
reason of social, moral and political disorder. The group which he referred to as ehl-i
inkar did not necessarily connote a denial of God, hence atheism in the modern sense
of the term, but rather a denial of some aspects of Sufi epistemology and practices.
These were the people with animalistic souls (ruh- hayvani) upon whom the
apocalypse would break.391 In Tuhfe-i meriyye, Bursevi once used the term ehl-i
inkar to refer to those religious scholars (not acquainted with Sufism) who denied the
experience of Hallac- Mansur: The public, particularly those who deny upon
hearing that word (Enel-Hakk) assume God to be the created object.392 In
epistemological terms, it implied those members of the ulema who were educated in

390

Naml, smail Hakk Bursevi, pp. 41-46; Sakb Yldz, Trk Mfessiri smail Hakk
Burusevinin Hayat, in Atatrk niversitesi slami limler Fakltesi Dergisi, no. 1 (1975) pp. 110112.
391

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i meriyye, p. 86.

392

Avamm- nas hususan ki erbab- inkar ol sz iitdkde Hakk olan cism-i mahlukidir
sanurlar. Ibid.

154

classical religious sciences and preferred a rather critical stance towards Sufi
epistemology and practices. As an exemplar, Bursevi frequently quoted Suleymans
criticism of the grand mufti ivizade who used to attack Mevlana Celaleddin Rumi
and Ibn Arabi particularly on issues of vahdet-i vcud.393
Bursevis criticisms regarding the ehl-i inkar were vague: he addressed rather
indefinite categories in his mind such as ulema-i zahir, ulema-i rsum, mddei,
zahids, etc. as if they were homogeneous bulks of adversaries who epitomized in
their existence those practices and ideas which Bursevi regarded as deviant, arrogant
or ignorant. Mddei which literally means the one who bets/claims, was a generic
category which for Bursevi contained all the above mentioned groups who denied
particular Sufi beliefs, practices and most importantly epistemology, and emphasized
the importance of coming to conclusions based on rational thinking and
argumentation. Hence they did not value divine inspiration, revelation or epiphany as
legitimate sources of knowledge:
Regard the rampages of the ulema-i zahir whenever a subtle meaning
does not have repercussions in their narrow minds comprehension, they
transgress their boundaries and quickly attempt at rejection. They are
not aware that this treatment results in the rejection of the sharia.394
These people conceptualized under the categories ulema-i rsum or ulema-i zahir
trusted their knowledge of the religious sciences such as theology, hadith and fiqh,

393

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p. 156 /Fol.56b.

394

te nazar eyle ulema-i zahirin tuyanlarna ki her mana-i latif ki havsala-i uur-i
kasrlarna gencaye bulmaya hadlerine tecavz edip redde msaraat ederler, bilmezler ki bu
muamele redd-i aria meddi olur. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p.119 /Fol.35b.

155

but in fact they lacked Sufi wisdom.395 A small amount of ink stain and smudge
remains on the mouths of some ulema, unless they wash and purify themselves, ilm-i
feyz (spiritual knowledge) will be away from them.396 Ulema-i inkar resided mostly
in the Anatolian lands while the lands of Rum and Acem, which manifested the
divine name Cemal (grace), hosted great saints (evliya) and authors (mellif ve
musannif).397 Bursevi argued that their denial had started to contaminate the lands of
Rum as well.398
In Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye in a verse Bursevi called out to religious scholars as such:
O medrese men, all you have attained are mere delusions.399 Actually, this
epistemological hierarchy which shaped Bursevis intellectual world had existed for
centuries. As early as the tenth century, religious scholars had differentiated between
the knowledge of the external which indicated the study of hadith and fiqh for the
interpretation of divine law and the knowledge of the inner which implied being
acquainted with the spiritual dimensions of man and the cosmos in general. A third
kind of knowledge was reserved for the knowledge of Gods attributes and
himself.400 It was thus a common theme among the Sufis to relate the acquisition of

395

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, p. 224 /Fol. 9a; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p. 142
/Fol.48a-b.
396

Baz ulema saliklerinin azlarnda, bir miktar mrekkep lekesi ve bula kalr. Bir ho
yunup arnmadktan sonra, ilm-i feyz onlara noksan zerine olur. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i smailiyye,
p.151 /Fol.17b.
397

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i meriyye, pp. 86-87.

398

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, III, p. 68/ Fol. 243b.

399

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p. 182 /Fol.70a.

400

Bernd Radtke, Sufism in the 18th Century: An Attempt at a Provisional Appraisal, Die
Welt des Islams 36, no. 3 (November 1996), p. 339.

156

divine knowledge, the knowledge of the inner dimensions, to mystical experiences

which could not be attained merely by the study of books and necessitated allegiance
to a spiritual master.401
It is possible to discern from Bursevis comments that ehl-i inkar included the
philosophers who believed in the supremacy of rational sciences and derived
conclusions based on rational thinking. Philosophers, since they were dominated by
the rule of reason and did not abide by the rules of the sharia, could not attain unity
with God.402 In Tuhfe-i meriyye, Bursevi criticized ehl-i istidlal, ehl-i mizan and
ehl-i nazar namely different types of philosophers for relying too much on rational
methods and at times contradicting themselves.403 Their unveilings (kef) were not
coming from their hearts but from their imagination, causing their knowledge to be
incoherent and unsteady.404 In historical reality, this distinction did not indicate
mutually exclusive categories though: just as there were jurists interested in Sufism
and sharia minded Sufis like the Celvetis educated in jurisprudence, it is plausible to
believe that there were philosophers who did not condemn Sufi knowledge and
maybe even showed an active interest in it. According to Khaled el-Rouayheb, in the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, contrary to common belief, there was an active

401

Ibid., p. 340.

402

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p. 138 /Fol.46a.

403

Ehl-i nazar was a term used to denote philosophers whose knowledge was based solely on
their observations of the material world; they undermined the value of inspirations and revelations.
Ehl-i istidlal was used to refer to those philosophers whose epistemological foundations were based
on deduction from evidence.
404

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i meriyye, p. 49; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p. 150 /Fol.53a, p. 165

/Fol.61a.

157

interest in rational sciences such as logic, dialectic, philosophy and rational theology
among Ottoman scholars. Bursevis frequent comments about the rising influence of
ehl-i inkar and the deficient knowledge of the philosophers could also serve as
another reflection on the maintenance of these sciences in the curriculum of
medreses. Actually another significant issue pointed out by el-Rouayheb is the
increase in the number of medreses which taught rational sciences in the seventeenth
century.405 In the early eighteenth century Esad Yanyavi (d. 1722) had translated a
work from Aristotle into Arabic for the court of Ahmed III who had also ordered a
translation of Srrl-Esrar, the pseudo-Aristotelian book which induced Ibn Arabi
to compose his Tedbirat- lahiyye.406 Similar to Bursevi, Mehmed Saaklzade
Marai (d.1732-3) was also grumbling about contemporary scholars and students
curiosity for philosophy although he did not vilify the study of sciences such as
astronomy, mathematics, medicine, logic and dialectics.407
Bursevis criticisms regarding the ulema-i zahir referred to a group of dialectic
others through which he situated himself as a religious authority and claimed the
superiority of Sufi epistemology and practices. Thus Bursevi was claiming himself a
position within the Ottoman religious circles as a member of the superior ulema-i

405

Khaled El-Rouayheb, The Myth of The Triumph of Fanaticism in the SeventeenthCentury Ottoman Empire, Die Welt des Islams 48, no. 2 (2008), pp. 196-221; on the proliferation of
medreses, see: Zilfi, The Politics of Piety, pp. 227-235.
406

El-Rouayheb, The Myth of the Triumph, p. 205; The Turkish translation of the pseudoAristotelian book which was titled Kefl-Estar An Srrl-Esrar was prepared by Muhammed elHamidi upon the request of Ahmed III. bn Arabi, Tedbirat- lahiyye: Tercme ve erhi, ed. Mustafa
Tahral interp. Ahmet Avni Konuk (stanbul: z Yaynclk, 1992), p. xiv.
407

El-Rouayheb, The Myth of the Triumph, p. 203; p. 208.

158

hakikat (ulema-billah or urefa) as opposed to ulema-i rsum. 408 In a rather

patronizing manner he suggested that such ulema-i rsum submit to a sheikh who
was conscious of the inner workings of their minds and the ill-wills of their egos and
knew how to discipline the malice arising from their nefs.409
Interestingly Bursevi warned the reader also against those who lived as ascetics
(erbab- zhd).410 Once in Tuhfe-i smailiyye, he mentioned how some people
criticized him for travelling extensively throughout the empire and tried to legitimize
himself by claiming that he had the permission of the prophet, of Ibn Arabi, of
Khidr and his sheikh Osman Fazl to engage in these travels.411 Although he did not
provide any details about these people and their criticisms, he provided a clue a
couple of passages later in his poem where he called out to the zahid to stop breaking
hearts by gossiping because he would not understand from Bursevis state - the state
of the lover of God (hal-i ak).412

408

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, II, p. 51 /Fol.223b

409

Binaen ala-haza gerektir ki, bu ahvalin batnndan haberdar olmus bir mride teslim
olalar ta ki onun terbiye ve iradyla Hakka yol bulalar. Ibid., p. 141 /Fol.12b; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i
Vesimiyye, p. 181 /Fol.69b.
410

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i smailiyye, p. 150 /Fol.17a.

411

Ibid., p. 173 /Fol.28b.

412

Hal-i aktan haberdar olmadan n zahida, Ko bu kyl u kali, hatrlar gnller ykma
gel! Ibid., pp. 173-174 Ibid, /Fol.29a

159

Jurists: Discourse of Religious Innovation

On the juristic functions of the ulema, Bursevi disclosed even more fervent attacks.
All throughout his tuhfes, he made frequent recourse to a discourse of religious
innovation versus Sunna to legitimize his position on a particular subject. The
discourse was in circulation among Muslim scholars at least since the time of Ibn
Teymiyye, but had found its public repercussions in the Ottoman context in the
seventeenth century. Bursevi challenged the jurists interpretation of the sharia by
claiming that the method of rey u kyas (analogical reasoning) to reach legal
conclusions was invalid, an innovation in itself.413 The age-long Sufi practices hod
not been subject to such legal sanction before, and since the orders of the jurists had
to depend on the decisions of the previous jurists, all the fetvas which vilified Sufi
practices such as sema, dhikr meetings, reading the Quran out loud in a melodical
fashion and the communal Kandil prayers were all bidats in juristic interpretation.414
They issue so many fetvas, did they exist at the time of the prophet?415 Bursevi
sought to provide basis for Sufi actions in examples from the time of the prophet, and
when he could not, he made recourse to either to the bindingness of the words and
deeds of the saints or the sultanic law. For example, he justified the communal
Kandil prayers by referring to the permission granted by Mehmed II: the word of the

413

Ibid., p.104 /Fol.287a.

414

Ibid., pp.102-105 /Fol.284a-288a.

415

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, III, p. 105 /Fol.287b.

160

sultan if it abided by the sunna was considered divine law hence any deviance from
the norm established by the sultan indicated a religious innovation as well.416

Mosque Preachers and Professors

His criticisms regarding the ulema were not limited to the insufficient nature of their
knowledge and insincerity of their religious practice but brimmed over to the social
functions of the ulema as well: The professors and mosque preachers of his time had
become toys at the hands of the devil and swerved away from the circle of morality
and religious devotion. Hence their words echoed in air in vain because they had no
effect on the listeners.417 The vibrant discussions that swept the pulpits of the
mosques particularly in the capital city in the seventeenth century reflected a
transformation in the parties who regarded themselves as legitimate negotiators of an
Islamic orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Religious discussions were not necessarily
pursued among the high-ranking ulema and through texts but among Sufi sheikhs
who had been increasingly more integrated into the ulema culture since the sixteenth
century and the medrese graduate mosque preachers coming from modest
backgrounds.418 The important aspect of this transformation was the increasing

416

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye, p.220 /Fol.15a; However sultanic laws were not binding for the
future sultans; particularly since the sixteenth century, as the jurists interpretation of the sharia came
into prominence, the bindingness of sultanic decrees was decreased. It was the grand muftis who held
the legislative function in their hands and manipulated law to a great extent according to their own
agendas. Ylmaz, Osmanl Devletinde Batllama, p.7, pp. 14-16.
417

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i smailiyye, p. 150/ Fol.17a.

418

Zilfi, The Kadzadelis: Discordant; pp. 251-269; Zilfi, The Politics of Piety, pp.129-181;
Terziolu, Sufi and Dissident, pp. 190-275.

161

publicity and politicization of such discussions and the participation of commoners in

this public sphere. It was the successors of these mosque preachers that Bursevi
criticized, without making a categorical distinction between Sufis and Kadzadelis,
for transgressing the boundaries of piety and ethical behavior.
The differentiation between ulema-i hakikat and ulema-i zahir was
appropriated by Bursevi as a motif around which he constructed his criticisms
regarding the misguidance of political authority and situated himself as a determinant
of the boundaries of religious orthodoxy. The position of the sheikh as a balanced
interpreter of religion both in juristic and mystical terms was seen as essential for the
governance of the empire and the human ego. Actually the blurring of the lines
between the ulema and Sufi cultures since the sixteenth century419 was reflected in
the way Bursevi perceived himself not only as a Sufi sheikh and a saint and but also
as a member of the ulema with the capacity to juristic and theological commentary.

The Zenith of Religious Hierarchy: Grand Mufti

In Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, Bursevi defined the grand mufti as the manifestation of the
divine name Alim and emphasized the significance of abiding by his fetvas. However
right after this, he engaged in a discussion of the position of the Sufi sheikh vis--vis
the sultan in the previous eras (which is discussed in detail in the next chapter). Why
did Bursevi focus his attention on Sufi sheikhs in a section about the grand mufti?

419

Terziolu, Sunna-Minded Sufi Preachers, p. 237.

162

Bursevi regarded both the grand mufti and the Sufi sheikh as the manifestations of
the same name (Alim): the difference was that one occupied a state office and was
given the authority to make law while the authority of the latter was unofficial.
Despite this unofficiality Bursevi still regarded the position of the Sufi sheikh as
important as that of the grand mufti, and thus viewed the authority of the latter as a
challenge.
Grand mufti Feyzullah Efendi (d. 1703) was another figure whom Bursevi
slyly resented in his texts, and although he never mentioned the reasons why, one can
still speculate. Particularly since he was already persecuted and disliked among many
groups, it was easier to comment on him even though Bursevi did not mention his
name. In the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, the grand
mufti/preceptor Feyzullah (son in law of the famous Kadzadeli figure Vani Efendi)
had seized almost all of the high-ranking positions within the ulema hierarchy for his
family members and turned them into aristocratic offices. He had acquired so much
power and influence that he had the upper hand not only in legislative but in all kinds
of state affairs.420 The ulema elites were not fond of him since they found the path to
higher posts blocked whereas Bursevi resented him as well since by his dual position
as the grand mufti and the preceptor he had monopolized sultans mentorship. In
Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, Bursevi made an implicit comment about Feyzullahs extensive
influence over the sultan and state affairs: It was not the grand mufti but the grand
vizier who was the top aide of the sultan, and all those who believed the opposite,

420

Zilfi, The Politics of Piety, pp. 215-216.

163

implying Feyzullah, deserved to be persecuted like him.421 It should be noted that

Bursevis situating the grand vizier above the grand mufti did not necessarily imply a
secular ideal but reflected the rising significance of the vizieral households along
with the expansion of the bureaucracy in the seventeenth century. Although he did
not provide any names, Bursevi did refer to the reign of Mustafa II and the
persecution of the grand mufti, making the subject of his lampoon obvious.422 It is
highly likely that his ironic remark about one of the dajjals being killed in his time in
Kitab- Kebir referred to the persecution of Feyzullah as well.423
Feyzullah was renowned for his extensive networks of nepotism, but according
to Naml, in Varidat- Hakkiyye, Bursevi criticized the grand mufti and his entourage
for their disregard for Sufism. He must have found in the person of Feyzullah the
epitome of ehl-i inkar, who by virtue of his proximity to the sultan had caused
disorder in religious and state affairs: a common theme which circulates in all of

421

Feyzullah Efendi was persecuted during the 1703 rebellion which is remembered as Edirne
Vakas or Feyzullah Efendi Vakas in modern historiography. The grand muftis power during this
period had extended so much that he even exercised control over to the dismissal and appointments of
grand viziers. On account of his extensive nepotism within the ulema hierarchy, he was dreaded by the
members of the ulema as well. Particularly the gossips about the transfer of the capital from stanbul
to Edirne and the delayed salaries of the soldiers aroused wide-spread discontent among the soldiers,
craftsmen, ulema and the public in general who started to march from stanbul to Edirne when their
demands from the sultan were not granted. As the army residing in Edirne joined the one coming from
stanbul, Sultan Mustafa II had to leave the throne to Ahmed III whereas the angry mob partook in the
persecution of Feyzullah Efendi. Zilfi, The Politics of Piety, pp. 215-220; Abou-El-Haj, The 1703
Rebellion; Hamadeh, The City's Pleasures, pp. 25-26; According to Bursevi, Feyzullahs nickname
Meftuni (captivated, enchanted) had been influential in directing the course of his fate and causing his
persecution at the hands of the sultans servants (kul fitnesi). Bursevi, Tuhfe-i meriyye, p. 67.
422

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, II, p. 203/ Fol.221b.

423

smail Hakk Bursevi, Kitab- Kebir, Fol.119b-120a quoted in Nuran Dner, smail Hakk
Bursevinin Kitab- Kebiri ve Bursevide Varidat Kltr, Tasavvuf: lmi ve Akademik Aratrma
Dergisi, no. 15 (2005) p. 330.

164

Bursevis tuhfes.424 However, the grand muftis association with the Halveti order
and the Naqshbandi sheikh Murad- Buhari (d. 1720) who arrived in Istanbul in 1681
indeed contradicts Bursevis views and reflects Feyzullahs interest in Sufism.425 A
detailed study on Feyzullahs relationship with Sufi orders and sheikhs needs to be
done in order to better contextualize Bursevis comments, which seems to have
arisen more from a personal resentment than a historical reality.
Therefore, in the early eighteenth century we see smail Hakk Bursevi quite
discontented about the rising influence of the high-ranking ulema in the ruling circles
and his marginalization as a Sufi sheikh within it. His resentment did have some
historical foundations: by the early eighteenth century the office of the grand mufti
had become rather stabilized and the ulema hierarchy had transformed into an
aristocratical establishment and the official representative of religion in the Ottoman
Empire.426 High-ranking ulema families were receiving many concessions and
privileges from the state regarding the appointment of their family members to
significant offices.427 Hence this was a period in which the ulema grandees held the
upper hand while Sufi sheikhs, at least that is how Bursevi perceived it, were
relegated to the background in terms of having direct communication with the sultan.
There was no significant Sufi figure like Hdayi who assumed the spiritual training
of the sultan. As has been discussed previously, this relegation of the Sufi sheikh vis-

424

Naml, smail Hakk Bursevi, pp.82-84.

425

imek, Osmanlda Mceddidilik, p. 112, pp. 142-143.

426

Madeline C. Zilfi, Elite Circulation in the Ottoman Empire: Great Mollas of the Eighteenth
Century, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 26, No. 3 (1983), pp. 318-364.
427

Zilfi, The Politics of Piety, pp. 183-235.

165

-vis the sultan did not necessarily imply a loss of power and position but a different
form of association with political power whose representatives were becoming
increasingly more inclusive.

Sufis as Ehl-i lhad

It was not only the ulema who were subject to Bursevis criticisms but also other Sufi
sheikhs. He reflected that the Sufi lodges, just like the medreses, were out of order as
a result of the insufficient knowledge of the sheikhs regarding both rational (akli) and
traditional (nakli) religious sciences.428 Envisioning his time as the age of disorder
(zaman- ihtilal), similar to the reflections of Ottoman scholars from diverse
backgrounds, he complained about the incompetence of mderriss and Sufi sheikhs
in religious instruction and portrayed the situation as a gloomy sign (adorned with an
imagery of owls and fire) of the approaching apocalypse.429 Douglas Howard
suggests that it was a common trope among Ottoman authors of nasihatnames since
the mid-sixteenth century to claim a prophetic voice by making references to the Day
of Judgment.430 Similarly Bursevi based his comments upon the imagery of an
approaching apocalypse, indeed at the end of Tuhfe-i Aliyye, he made detailed
calculations to anticipate the coming of the Messiah which he argued was postponed

428

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, p. 387 /Fol.79b; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p. 164

/Fol.60b.
429

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i meriyye, p. 74-75. For another example of apocalyptic imagery, see
Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p. 146 /Fol.50b.
430

Howard, Genre and Myth, 149-150.

166

after the year Hicri year 1500.431 In Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, he reflected on the condition
of the society in a similar literary tone: The situation of these ages is absolutely
disastrous. The circle of people is filled with Ahrimans and the masjids being
transformed into taverns, minarets are left alone.432 According to Radtkes analysis
of the texts of some eighteenth century Arabic speaking Sufi scholars, a similar
concern for the moral degradation of Sufi sheikhs and their practices were abundant
among the authors. Particularly doctrinal issues such as hull and ittihad, from which
Bursevi paid explicit effort to distance himself433, and mingling with women and
beardless youths were among the most resented themes.434 In Tuhfe-i smailiyye
Bursevi criticized the Sufi morality of his time for congruent reasons: Those who
are sheikhs employ drunken songsters. Women, like men, convoke a circle of dhikr
and make their voices heard by foreigners and strangers.435
There was a particular reference to a sheikh of his time who was poisoned by
the last sultan because he had become a heretic (mlhid) although he did not mention
exactly which practices and beliefs he was accused of.436 Was the Sufi that Bursevi

431

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye, p.230 /Fol.21a.

432

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p.139 /Fol.46b; for a similar grievance regarding peoples
disregard for religion, see: Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, III, p. 66 /Fol.241b-242a.
433

In his explanations of the vahdet-i vcud doctrine, Bursevi emphasized that vahdet (unity)
did not imply the union of God with men (ittihad) but the manifestation (zuhur) of Gods absolute
existence in the servant mans dissolved being. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p. 158 /Fol.57a-b.
434

Radtke, Sufism in the 18th Century, p. 341.

435

Meayih namna olanlar, sarho zakirler istihdam ederler. Avratlar, erler gibi halka-i zikir
akd edip savtlarn ecnebilere ve na-mahremlere iittirirler. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i smailiyye, p. 140
/Fol.11b.
436

Ve bizim zamanmzda baz uyuh varta-i ilhada dm idi. Akran olanlar ilhadn teyid
eylediler. Ve kendi dahi musr oldu. Egeri onu irada kadir kimse var idi ve ahir-i sultan elinden

167

was referring to, the controversial Halveti sheikh Niyazi Msri who claimed to have
been poisoned in his diaries? In a poem he accused Msri for exposing the secrets of
the Sufi to commoners who could not distinguish between legalistic and general
forms of prophethood. In Tuhfe-i meriyye and Tuhfe-i Aliyye, he approved the
persecution of those who claimed prophethood for themselves or for people other
than the canonically recognized ones.437
According to Hseyin Vassaf who quoted one of the letters Bursevi wrote
against Msri, Bursevi frankly criticized the Halveti sheikh for claiming legalistic
prophethood (nbvvet-i rfiyye) for the sons of caliph Ali, Hasan and Hseyin in his
Risale-i Hasaneyn.438 Although Msri claimed to have been poisoned, he was not
persecuted by the grand mufti Feyzullah Efendi as Bursevi allegedly narrated in this
letter but was sent to exile in Limni. This could be a case of misinformation on
Bursevis behalf. 439 In a hagiographic text about Niyazi Msri written by a Halveti
sheikh named Abdi-i Siyahi, Bursevis criticisms were portrayed as being caused by
his verdancy.440 However, the fact that Bursevi was drawing attention to the same
issue also in his later texts such as Tuhfe-i Recebiyye (1718) and Tuhfe-i meriyye

mesmum oldu. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, pp.266-267 /Fol.27a; Bursevi defined ilhad (religious
deviancy) as misconceptions about prophethood and the names and attributes of God. Bursevi,
Tuhfe-i Aliyye, p. 216 /Fol.12b.
437

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i meriyye, p. 80; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye, pp. 214-215 /Fol.11b, p.
216 /Fol.12b.
438

Abdi-i Siyahi, Limnide Srgn Bir Veli, pp. 37-38.

439

Mustafa Akar, Niyazi Msri ve Tasavvuf Anlay (Ankara: Kltr Bakanl, 1998) pp.
348-350; For Niyazi Msris response to smail Hakk Bursevi see: Abdi-i Siyahi, Limnide Srgn
Bir Veli,pp. 34-39; For a more detailed account on the discussions surrounding Niyazi Msri, see
Terziolu, Sufi and Dissident in the Ottoman.
440

Abdi-i Siyahi, Limnide Srgn Bir Veli, p. 36.

168

(1722) is an indicator of his abiding stance regarding the discussion. Bursevis

fervent criticism of Niyazi Msri was not only a reflection of his youth and
insufficient knowledge but also of his discretion not to diffuse mystical knowledge to
the masses in an easily misunderstandable manner because this could lead to
misconceptions and disorder.441
In the tuhfes used for analysis, Bursevi made a case for the prominence of
saints as inheritors of the prophet in the mode of Ibn Arabi while highlighting the
fact that no one could claim prophethood for anyone other than those recognized by
the Quran and the divine law. He thus distinguished between two forms of
prophethood: the legalistic and spiritual one. By drawing the boundaries of
acceptable doctrines and practices within the Sufi circles Bursevi underscored to the
importance of abidance by the sharia. It can hence be suggested that by the early
eighteenth century Sufis through at least two centuries of Sunnitization had become
enmeshed with the ulema culture, acquiring a more or less stable position as
consolidators of orthodoxy with figures like smail Hakk Bursevi positioning
themselves vis--vis other religious scholars (Sufis or not) as the mouthpiece of a
sharia-abiding sunna-minded Sufism. This was also one of the reasons why Bursevi
did not hesitate to criticize the practices of other Sufis through a discourse of
orthodoxy/orthopraxy in texts that aimed to circulate beyond the limited milieu of the
Sufi order and religious scholars and reach a wider range of people.

441

This is not to say that Bursevi showed outward hostility towards the Halveti path in his
tuhfes though. At least on theoretical grounds he maintained the mainstream Celveti position which
emphasized the superiority and subsequency of the station of celvet in comparison with halvet while
recognizing the significance of halvet as a stepping stone for that higher rank. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i
meriyye, p. 60.

169

Bernd Radtke argues that these Sufi laments and criticisms of the eighteenth
century should not be taken at face value as a will to reform but rather as timeless
clichs which are abundant in Sufi literature of all times.442 Although it is true that
Sufi critics of Sufism who operated within a discourse of social disorder and
immorality had always existed, the context within which such criticisms were
rendered meaningful still needs to be taken into account. Particularly the case of
Bursevi whose criticisms were directed not only to the limited milieu of the Sufis and
religious scholars but to all segments of society, his perception of a decline marked
by an imaginary golden age had parallelisms with the writings of other contemporary
commentators who composed advice treatises or reform tracts. In that respect,
Bursevis criticisms regarding the members of the religious establishment was
similar to the grievances of commentators from different backgrounds such as
administrators and bureaucrats who elucidated on the decline of the institutions they
belonged to within a more general vision of imperial decline.
As the second cause of disorder Bursevi pointed out the group of deviants (ehli ilhad) which he, without distinguishing its features, singled out as k
(illumination). When used in reference to a specific group, k implied in the
sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries antinomian deviant dervishes with shia
proclivities. The term could be used in reference to different sorts of esoteric
dervishes who were accused for deviant behavior by groups who made a claim to
orthodoxy: thus k could imply members of the Bektais, Hurufis or Kalenderis as

442

Radtke, Sufism in the 18th Century, p. 342.

170

well.443 These mystics were frequently attacked by more conservative groups for
their disregard for the rules set forward by the sharia and the Sunna: they shaved
their beards, traveled around half naked, wore earrings, smoked weed and did not
perform the obligatory salaat.444 Bursevis criticisms with regard to the wide-spread
practice of barbers shaving beards and people walking around half-naked could have
implications for the socially transgressive behaviors of k. However it is also
probable that Bursevi did not associate these practices with a particular group but
operated within a discourse of piety based on Sufi ethics.445
Bursevis use of the term was generic and indiscriminate among different
groups of dervishes: He argued that this group of k did not only have an influence
on statesmen but they also sneaked in Sufi lodges to spread their teachings.446 They
had caused disorder in the workings of the state and the universe, leading to the
depredation of the foundations of the world and the religion. Through an almost
apocalyptic vision, Bursevi portrayed a scene of social, moral and political decay in
which the blame lied on the people of k for abolishing piety (takva) and bringing
about ominous signs such as the hooting of owls on every roof.447 His focus seemed

443

Helga Anetshofer, Meair-uarada Toplum-Tanmaz Sapkn Derviler, in Ak

elebi ve airler Tezkiresi zerine Yazlar, ed. Hatice Aynur and Asl Niyaziolu (stanbul: Ko
niversitesi Yaynlar, 2011), p. 89.
444

Ibid., pp. 85-86.

445

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i smailiyye,pp. 139-140 /Fol.11b.

446

Ve ol iki ahsn biri dahi ehl-i ilhaddr ki k tabir olunurlar. Ve bunlarn bu asarda
kesretleri vardr. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, p. 361 /Fol. 68a.
447

Ve bu klar ile ahval-i devlet muhtell ve umur-i alem mevve olup erkan- dnya ve din
yklmaya yz tuttu ve esas ve bina- takva mnhedim olup harab-abad ve dnyann her sakfnda bir
trl bayku tt. Ve zahir ve batn ii tamam olup bitti. Ibid.

171

to be more on the socially unacceptable behaviors portrayed by this group than on

the particulars of their religious beliefs and practices. It is probable that when he used
the term k, Bursevi did not necessarily refer to a particular dervish group or
members of a specific Sufi order but to all those individuals who ignored social order
and went into extremes in social and religious behavior. In a similar manner, Hdayi
was complaining in the late sixteenth century about the rising influence of k
dervishes in the Balkan provinces and warning Murad III to take solid actions against
them in his letters. However, his warnings implied an actual historical threat to be
taken care of unlike those of Bursevi who seems to have used the term not as a
signifier of historical realities but more as a literary device to indicate epitomes of
religious and social extremism.448
As for the Bayrami-Melamis, Bursevi legitimized the persecution of Hamza-i
Bayrami and Olan eyhi on account of their disregard for the sharia and
transgressive deviant (melahide) activities.449 These two figures belonged to the
controversial Bayrami-Melamis whose geneaology reached back to Hac Bayram
Veli through mer Dede in the fifteenth century. Olan eyhi smail Mauki was
one of the most influential sixteenth-century representatives of this group (a preacher
at some of the imperial mosques in the capital city) and was persecuted with his
twelve disciples after a trial (directed by the grand mufti Ibn Kemal) on account of
his denial of the fundamental elements of Sunni Islam. In the court record of this

448

In Hdayis letters the k emerges as another group of heretics (melahide ve zanadka)

following the footsteps of Ibn Simavi in the Balkans. After defining the components of the heretics,
Hdayi gears toward immediate resolutions to sunnitize these elements such as the appointment of a
Sunni imam to every village who will provide religious education to men, women and children and
the destruction of the leaders of these non-sunni groups. Hdayi, Mektuplar, p. 59/ Fol. 52a.
449

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye, p. 209/ Fol.8b.

172

trial, he was represented as having denied inter alia the distinction between good and
sinful, the obligatory salaat, the apocalypse, the hell and claimed the possibility of
hull (penetration of God into a persons body).450 It was not necessarily his beliefs
but his outward expression of them in the public and gaining a considreable
following that turned him into a threat for social order. Hamza Bali was another
representative of the Bayrami-Melamis who carried the movement to Bosnia and was
persecuted in 1561 by the fetva issued by Ebussuud on account of being a follower of
smail Mauki.451 Despite the manifest relationship between the Celveti and Bayrami
orders by way of ftade and Hdayis protection of Sar Abdullah in the seventeenth
century, it is difficult at this moment to speak of an overarching positive Celveti
stance vis--vis the Bayrami-Melamis. In Tuhfe-i Aliyye, Bursevi disassociated
himself from these suspicious figures and legitimized their persecution. In his
other tuhfes he was even more silent about them; despite his detailed discussions
regarding poles and saints, he never mentioned the famous Bayrami-Melami poles.
The reason for this silence could be that in the early eighteenth century, Celvetis had
already stabilized their positions as the defenders of a sharia-abiding Sunna minded
Sufism which was well articulated into the religious and educational culture of the
ulema.

450

Ahmet Yaar Ocak XVI.-XVII. Yzyllarda Bayrami (Hamzavi) Melamileri ve Osmanl

Ynetimi, in Osmanl Sufiliine Baklar idem. (stanbul: Tima, 2011) pp. 157-158; Ahmet Yaar
Ocak, Kanuni Sultan Sleyman Devrinde Osmanl Resmi Dncesine Kar Bir Tepki Hareketi:
Olan eyh smail-i Mauki, in Osmanl Sufiliine Baklar, idem. (stanbul: Tima, 2011), pp. 5968.
451

Ocak, XVI.-XVII. Yzyllarda Bayrami, pp. 161-162; Ali Erken, A Historical Analysis
of Melami-Bayrami Hagiographies (M.A. thesis, Boazii University, 2009), p.18, pp. 77-80, pp.
121-122.

173

Social Critique: Impiety and Commingling

The eighteenth century Ottoman Empire which is popularly remembered in modern

historiography as the Age of Tulips (Lale Devri) was one in which mass
consumption, pleasure activities and social influx had gained impetus due to the
changes in the stratification of the society, organization of the public sphere and the
accumulation of wealth by new social groups such as middle class urban men and
women, artisans, craftsmen and soldiers).452 Particularly imported manufactured
objects of which the most famous were the tulips, were circulating among a wider
range of people, wavering the existent social and economical organization of the
society.453 These people who were articulated to the Ottoman elites had new
aspirations, consumption habits and cultural practices which were transformed into
signs of social and economic distinction through public displays of pomp and
power.454 The expansion of the political nation throughout the seventeenth century
and the increasing monetization of the Ottoman economy had started to reflect itself
in the organization of the public sphere and the aesthetic expectations of the Ottoman
elites in the eighteenth.455 Shirine Hamadeh describes the process as such:

452

For the diffusion of patronage ties in the eighteenth century see: Hamadeh, Splash and
Spectacle, pp. 123-148; Linda T. Darling, Political Change and Political Discourse in the Early
Modern Mediterranean World, The Journal of Interdisciplinary History 38, no. 4 (Spring 2008), p.
531.
453

Salzmann, The Age of Tulips, p. 88.

454

Hamadeh, Ottoman Expressions of Early, p. 34.

455

Tezcan, The Second Ottoman Empire, pp. 1-45.

174

To a certain extent, this aesthetic and cultural opening was occasioned

by a wider exposure to foreign ideas and material culture. But the
greater receptiveness to innovation grew primarily out of a long process
of transformation in the Ottoman social order that had begun to
crystallize in the architectural and cultural landscape of Istanbul in the
eighteenth century.456

Particularly with the closing of the Ottoman frontier in Europe with the Treaty of
Karlowitz (1699) and Treaty of Istanbul (1703) after several terribly unsuccessful
attempts to siege Vienna, one can speak of the early eighteenth century as a relatively
stable era of peace in which the court, statesmen and the newly arising middle class
elites were engaged in a competition to manifest their power in the urban texture of
the capital city.457 Thus, one has to keep in mind that the context in which Bursevi
composed his tuhfes (considering that he composed most of them during his stay in
skdar) was shaped by increasing public visibility, commingling, pomposity and a
topsy-turvy social order. The literary and conceptual tools he needed to formulate a
critique of this society were already well elaborated in the seventeenth century works
of scholars from various backgrounds.
As a Sufi sheikh Bursevi directed his discourse of piety towards the
transformations of the society when he claimed that the empire had resembled the
countries of the infidels (ehl-i harb), filled with sinful objects.458 He probably
regarded peoples excessive tendency to consume, acquire European commodities

456

Hamadeh, Ottoman Expressions of Early, p. 45.

457

Rifaat Abou-el-Haj, The Formal Closure of the Ottoman Frontier in Europe: 1699-1703,
Journal of the American Oriental Society 89, no. 3 (July-September, 1969), pp. 467-475.
458

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i smailiyye, p.163 /Fol.23b.

175

and engage in pleasure activities as a sign of decline in morality and emulating the
life-styles of the Europeans.459 Members of the ulema too were represented by
Bursevi as taking part in these new consumption practices which emphasized social
visibility and distinction by eating too much from everything without a disregard for
sinful and dressing in gallant costumes. He thus invited people to lead a pious life of
abstinence away from engagement in these activities of conspicuous consumption.460
Obviously there is also the possibility that Bursevis comments were informed more
by a generic discourse of Sufi piety as a literary convention instead of a specific
response to the historical realities of the period.
Particularly with the expansion of recreational spheres such as the square
fountains, public gardens and coffeehouses in which people could gather together,
one can speak of an increasing socialization among people of varying backgrounds
including women who have led their lives mostly in seclusion up until then.461 In
Bursevis criticisms, one comes across an underlying discourse of contamination in
the stories he manipulated as illustrative examples of his views. It is true that most of
these stories had a mythical and universally applicable nature particularly within Sufi
wisdom; however the way in which Bursevi related them alongside his fervent
criticisms of the society may help us understand the context in which these stories

459

Leslie Peirce, The Material World: Ideologies and Ordinary Things, in The Early Modern
Ottomans: Remapping the Empire, ed. Virginia H. Aksan and Dan Goffman (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2007), p. 225.
460

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i smailiyye, p.163 /Fol.23a-23b.

461

Shirine Hamadeh, Public Spaces and the Garden Culture of Istanbul in the Eighteenth
Century, in The Early Modern Ottomans: Remapping the Empire, ed. Virginia H. Aksan and Dan
Goffman (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), p. 277-278, p. 283-285.

176

were made relevant by Bursevi. One particular story he mentioned reflected his view
on the dangers of mingling with others. Bursevi recounted the story of some women
in Baghdad during the Abbasid period who used to spin yarn at nights on the roof of
their houses. They would stop spinning when the caliphs torches passed from the
street because they suspected that the yarn they spun under the light of those torches
would contaminate the yarn they spun under the moonlight. Praising their extreme
caution in being clean as to not mixing even the suspected light of the torch with
moonlight while spinning yarn, Bursevi suggested that if these women had seen
todays men and maybe the sheikhs and the ascetics of today, they would say: they
are animals, they will not be rewarded in the afterlife.462 A similar story about Ebu
Yezid Bistami was related to illustrate the precaution of pious people against
contamination and mingling: Bistami had made his baby son vomit when he saw a
female neighbor instead of his wife breastfeeding him.463 It is interesting that here
Bursevi referred to the widespread practice of wetnursing among Ottoman elites.
These stories, other than their universally exemplary nature for acts of piety, may
have been indications of Bursevis reserved and conservative stance towards social
and cultural influx which arose from increasing social mobility and socialization.
There was a certain attitude in these stories which praised remaining within ones
boundaries to stay away from suspicious people and activities. Thus, to transmit his
message of the necessity of finding balance in all aspects of life Bursevi relied on a

462

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i smailiyye. Eger ol makule hatunlar, bu zamann erlerini ve belki

eyhlerini ve zahidlerini grelerdi, bunlar hayvanlardr, bunlara ahiretten nasip yoktur derlerdi.
Ibid., p.162 /Fol.23a.
463

Ibid., pp. 161-162/ Fol. 23a.

177

reservoir of dreams, ancient stories, myths and imagery which invoked in the mind of
the reader a discourse of piety and moderation.
Stepping out of the safety limits of the sharia (had-i er)464 both in intellectual,
spatial and social terms and mingling with the others implied danger: Many
people have fallen off the cliff because of wrong acquaintances and have deviated
from the path of ehl-i snnet.465 Telling the story of a disciple of Ebu Yezid
Bistami who fell from grace and supposedly engaged in actions that were not
convenient for a dervish (what kind of actions the reader was not informed) Bursevi
claimed that this dervish suffered for crossing the lines of the sharia by being both
physically and spiritually inflicted.466 In Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, referring to the same
story, he suggested that the common people have failed to recognize such deviant
individuals because they did not have the scale of sharia in their hands.467 Being
subject to the commands of the sharia once again established the limits of acceptable
behaviors and beliefs not only on behalf of the people but also on behalf of the Sufis.
For Bursevi, sharia did not only imply abidance by the precepts of the Quran but also
by the words and acts of the sheikhs and saints who had attained divine knowledge:
All of the words and actions of those who have reached this station (meaning the
highest level of gnosis) are considered sharia and divine law and whoever acts in

464

Ibid., p. 154 /Fol.19a.

465

Nitekim niceler su-i karine ile vartaya dmler ve ehl-i snnet mezhebinden
kmlardr. Ibid., p.146 /Fol. 15a.
466

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, pp.224-225 /Fol.9a.

467

Zira ellerinde mizan- eriat yoktur. Ibid., p.306 /Fol.43a.

178

abidance to them finds the true path.468 The estrangement of spiritual authority
exemplified by the saintly Sufi sheikh from political authority, of which the ultimate
symbol was the sultan, implied the collapse of the foundational pillars which held the
Ottoman state and society in order and intact. This process of estrangement had
surfaced with the influence of actors (defined in the imagery of the ehl-i inkar and
ehl-i ilhad) who misguided rulers through their misinterpretation of religion.
According to Bursevi, misinterpretation implied an unbalanced, immoderate reading
of religious doctrines and practices which meant either a denial of the mystical
elements of the Sufis or the denial of the temporal provisions designated by the
sharia. They constituted the two opposites poles that through a tug of war constantly
altered religious equilibrium which he believed was the essential aspect for the
maintenance of political and social order. Therefore, Bursevis thinking was very
much in line with many of his contemporaries from different backgrounds who made
an almost exclusive claim to the indispensability of establishing order through a
balanced proposition.

468

Ve bu mertebeye vusulu bulunanlarn akval ve efali bil-cmle eriat ve kanun-i ilahidir ki

her kim kabul edip amel ederse hidayet-i hassa bulur. Onun iin snen-i meayh ve ezkar- evliyaya
rabet ederler. Ibid., p.237 /Fol.15a.

179

CHAPTER VI
SUFI SHEIKH AND POLITICAL AUTHORITY

The arguments provided in this chapter follow two lines of discussion. Firstly I
examine how Bursevi constructed the Sufi sheikh as a saint and the inheritor of the
prophet to legitimize his spiritual authority and to claim the indispensability of
paying allegiance to him for political authority figures. Secondly I describe how
Bursevi relied on an existing repertoire of narratives and motives to reflect on the
way in which he perceived a semi-mythical historical decline in the relationship
between Sufi-state relations in the Ottoman context. Narrating examples of the
mystical beginnings of the Ottoman state, he commented on the constitutive nature of
spiritual authority in the foundation of the empire. The sultans power and legitimacy
to rule came from his proximity to this particular form of spiritual authority which
did not imply the institutionalized ulema but the saintly Sufi sheikh who was
perceived as the perfect human being, the epitome of balance.
smail Hakk Bursevi defined the real binding authority behind the sultan as the
Pole and the ricalullah (men of God, saints) under his authority since he considered
the Pole superior (azam) to the sultan.469 The actions and decisions of the rulers
were dependent on the saints since the latter constituted the truth, the real meaning of
existence (hakikat-i vcud): Kutbl-aktab and other ricalullah are the
manifestations of the esoteric name and they are concealed under woolen cloth. The

469

Bursevi, Kitabn-Netice vol. II, p. 67.

180

dominion of the sultan is dependent on their dominion.470 One should keep in mind
that despite his comments on the necessity of the manifestation of the Pole (as
discussed in the previous chapter), Bursevi still conceptualized both the saints and
the Pole as hidden. This concealment did not necessarily imply asceticism or a total
shunning of social life as Bursevi himself was a man very much active in social life.
It seems to have indicated rather abstinence from direct involvement in political
affairs and occupying state offices. The phrase under woolen cloth (tahtel aba)
openly distinguishes the Sufi sheikh as the man of God who influences the affairs of
the world but only in an indirect manner. It is because of this concealment that the
knowledge of the binding spiritual authority remained a secret for a select few to
acknowledge. The role of the Sufi sheikh is emphasized at this point. Bursevi made it
clear that particularly the sultans were unaware of this secret unless they were
informed by a competent sheikh or were the caliphs of God themselves. However, it
was very rare that a sultan merged the qualities of worldly and spiritual authority in
his hands:
Nevertheless externally, the sultans do not know of this secret. For
knowing occurs either via illumination which is then subject to
conversation or by himself being one of the caliphs, for the caliph is
shadowed. Nevertheless, [the number of] caliphs among those who are
appointed as vicegerents for the seizure and dominion of the universe
are less than the least.471

470

Kutbl-aktab ve sair ricalullah batn ismine mazharlardr ki tahtel-aba muhtefi

olmulardr. Eeeri tasarruf- sultan anlarn tasarruflarna menutdr. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i
Recebiyye, p. 379 /Fol.75b-76a.
471

Velakin zahirde selatin bu srr bilmezler. Zira bilmek ya tarif ile olur ki sohbete
mevkuftur veyahud kendi hulefadan olmakla olur. Zira halife mazluldur. Velakin zabt ve tasarruf-i
lem iin mvekkil olanlardan hulefa ekall-i kalildir. Ibid., p. 379 /Fol.76a.

181

Bursevi blamed the sultans of his time for the disorder and destruction that befell on
the people over which they ruled. Because the sultans were not recognizing the
spiritual authority of the saints (most importantly of the Pole), acting according to
Gods will and subjecting their world to religion, they and their people were left
without divine assistance. In the times of the just rulers, kutbs and men of
importance would travel from surrounding countries to the empire and seek
protection under the shadow of the sultan.472 The well-being of the people for
Bursevi (just as for many of the nasihatname authors in the past two centuries)
depended on the morality and religiosity of the rulers and their willingness to
implement the divine law in the governance of the empire. Hence the remedy was the
revival of the religiosity of the sultan and the statesmen as the representations of
political authority which would bring about the favor of God and his friends back
into the realms of the Ottoman Empire. And in this epoch, the sultans do not have
sheikhs, the ones they have are like preceptors (hoca). However, just as there is no
body without a soul, there can be no sultan without a sheikh.473 Bayezid Bistamis
much referred aphorism Satan is the sheikh of those who do not have a sheikh was
another example Bursevi relied on to imply the significance of submission to a Sufi
sheikh.474 Indeed particularly during the reign of Murad IV, the Kadzadeli preacher
stvani had found his way into the palace not only as the mentor of the sultan but

472

Mluk-i adile zamanlarnda ise aktab ve rical etraf-i biladdan edd-i rihl ederler. Ve
istizlal iin saye-i sultana giderlerdi. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, p.299 /Fol. 40a.
473

Ve bu asarda eyhus-sultan yoktur, olan dahi hoca namnadr. Velakin bi-ruh beden
olmad gibi bi-la-eyh dahi sultan olmaz. Ibid., p. 419 /Fol.92b.
474

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p. 136/ Fol. 45b.

182

also as the court preacher, a position established just for him.475 In terms of influence
in the palace circle, stvani was followed by another Kadzadeli preacher, Vani
Mehmed as the favorite of the grand vizier Kprlzade Fazl Ahmed who presided
over the state between the years 1661 and 1676. Although Bursevis master Osman
Fazl had also established relations with Mehmed IV and the Kprl viziers during
this period, the rising influence of actors such as the Kadzadelis and the palace staff
(particularly the chief eunuch) in the political sphere seems to have resulted in a
division of power. Thus it was not possible for a particular Sufi sheikh to establish a
monopoly in associating with the authority figures due to the politics of balance
pursued by the sultan and high-ranking statesmen who tried to consolidate power
between different groups. An exceptional figure is Feyzullah who rose from
mentorship of Mustafa II to the position of the grand mufti in the late seventeenth
early eighteenth century. Feyzullah with his extensive influence in state affairs and
ulema appointments indeed enjoyed a great deal of influence in the political arena
until his persecution at the hands of the people in the 1703 uprising.476 Grand muftis
preference for the rising Naqshbandi-Mujaddidi sheikhs may have been another
factor in the changing patterns of association for the Celveti sheikhs like Bursevi
who in the early eighteenth century interacted more with the grand viziers and people
from the palace staff rather than the sultan and the grand mufti.477

475

Zilfi, Politics of Piety, p. 141.

476

Ibid, pp. 215-220.

477

imek, Osmanlda Mceddidilik.

183

Obviously none of these figures who held the upper hand in associating with
the sultan during the lifetime of Busevi were Sufi sheikhs, a fact that Bursevi
frequently resented in his texts. It was not sufficient for a sultan to receive guidance
in any from any one. The ideal form of guidance was the spiritual training of the
ruler which could be undertaken only through the supervision of the Sufi sheikh. The
master-disciple relationship between the Sufi sheikh and the ruler would not only
help the improvement of the rulers piety and morality but also strengthen him in the
decision-making processes so that the influence of other groups such as the ehl-i
inkar and ehl-i ilhad on the sultan would be dismantled. In many aspects, Bursevis
approach to the Ottoman political system reflected an absolutist ideal since the main
locus of discussion remained to be the sultan (who was regarded as the maintainer of
order) and the bad influence of other groups (who were the reasons of disorder) on
the sultan.
The role of the Sufi sheikh in the establishment of worldly order was hence
defined as to provide spiritual training to rulers and statesmen. However since this
master-disciple relationship rarely took place it was still important to provide at least
counsels. The significance of counseling rulers was a considerably old theme
reflected in the Islamic political wisdom literature that aimed to present examples of
an ideal form of political authority through sagely stories and archetypical examples
as early as the eighth century.478 In the Ottoman context the same notion was being
highlighted by Ottoman nasihatname authors since the sixteenth century.479 For

478

Al-Azmeh, Muslim Kingship, p. 89.

479

Ylmaz, Osmanl Devletinde Batllama, pp. 25-26.

184

Bursevi, consultation (mavere/meveret) had two aspects: In the first one, the
rulers were expected to consult with religious authorities to decide on the legitimacy
of their actions in terms of religion. Obviously this was already the responsibility of
the jurists, most importantly the grand mufti. However, throughout his texts Bursevi
constantly criticized the jurists for their denial of Sufi knowledge and their worldly
concerns. Rather it was himself as a Sufi sheikh who, by virtue of his position as the
balanced merger of the knowledge of sharia and Sufi wisdom, emerged as an
authoritative voice in the provision of both legal and spiritual guidance to political
authority figures. The second aspect of consultation was to decide on whom to
appoint as state officials. Religious authorities, having insufficient knowledge in
temporal affairs (umur-i rfiyye) could only point to competent people to be
consulted on these issues. And if both the religious and administrative authorities
were unable to settle a problem, then it would be best to consult a Sufi sheikh who
could provide a solution through inspiration and unveiling as Bursevi claimed to be
the case for Ahmed I and Hdayi.480
Bursevi also found it incumbent on those who were invited by the rulers to give
advice to respond to their invitation; otherwise they would be transgressing the limits
established by the ehl-i snnet and become ehl-i bidat. Here Bursevi equated bidat,
which is mostly used to connote innovations in religion, with disobedience to the
leaders of the society. The most important aspect of counseling for him was to speak

480

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, p. 385-386/ Fol. 78b.

185

softly and lucidly to convey ones message to the figures of political authority.481 So
when the grand vizier orlulu Ali Paa invited Bursevi to take advice from him in
1710, the Sufi sheikh responded immediately although he was on his way to Mecca
for pilgrimage. It was the duty of the sultan and his vicegerents, because of their
superior position, to invite religious scholars and ask their opinion, not vice versa.482
It is difficult to conceptualize the position of the consultant Sufi sheikhs as a limiting
power on the authority of the sultan or any other statesmen though: the counsels they
provided did not have a binding character, and any transgression or frank
exclamation on behalf of the sheikhs could end up in their exile. Still both in
literature and practice receiving advice from spiritual leaders were one of the
established Ottoman political traditions if not the necessary constituents of being a
ruler.

Inheritors of the Prophet: Submission to the Sufi Sheikh as the Saint

Just as the people recognized the sultan of their time and obeyed him, it was
extremely important that the capable ones (erbab-i istidad) submitted to one of the
poles of their period or they would become men of innovation (ehl-i bidat) and
would be deprived from divine assistance forever.483 Here, Bursevi was referring to
the aktab- irad, those saints who had the authorization to guide people in matters of

481

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye, p. 203/ Fol. 5a.

482

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, pp. 383-386/ Fol.78a-78b.

483

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, pp. 298-299 /Fol. 39b.

186

faith since he used the plural form of kutb. At the roots of this commentary lay the
emphasis on the necessity of submitting to a competent Sufi sheikh who by virtue of
his spiritual rank would be considered one of the kutb- irad and had the capacity to
train the disciple so that he could gain the knowledge of kutb- vcud.484 Therefore
obedience to poles were regarded as (or maybe even more) significant as obedience
to the sultan who held most of the time only worldly authority in his hands. His
power did not extend to the realm of the prophets, saints and religion unless he paid
homage to the spiritual authority of the men of God and protected them. But the
kutb- irad was not only a member of the spiritual government but he was also a
publicly available and approachable figure: a merger of two worlds.
The sheikh of a community, by virtue of his divine knowledge and
intellect is like a prophet among the ummah. Obedience and submission
to him are necessary since he is one of the leaders.485
Bursevis defitinion of ull-emr (leaders of a society) included prophets, sheikhs as
their inheritors and the temporal rulers to whom complete obedience was seen
obligatory since rebellion against them was equated with obedience to God.486

484

Ibn Arabi claimed that he intentionally withheld the information regarding the Poles until
the Day of Judgment for the sake of the people. If the information was available and they denied it out
of ignorance, their punishment would be worse. Ibid., p. 380 /Fol.76b.
485

Bir kavmin eyhi ilm u aklna nazarla meyan- mmette nebi gibidir. taati lazm ve
mtabaat vacibtir. Zira ull-emrdir. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p. 136 /Fol.45b.
486

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p.127 /Fol.40b; p.136 /Fol.45b; on the requirement of

obedience to ull-emr, see Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye, p.220 /Fol.15a, p.226 /Fol.18b. Bursevi
defined the necessity of submitting to a sheikh boldly by claiming that it was not possible to find
ones way without a competent guide who could train the disciple in constant fight with the ego
(mcahedat) and abstinence (riyazat). He also suggested that the rules of the sharia were for the
commoners while allegiance to a sheikh was the lot of a select few (havass) pointing to a position of
social distinction among those who belonged to a Sufi order and engaged in Sufi training. It was also
extremely important that ones sheikh was not lost in divine ecstasy (a meczub) but someone who
strictly followed the rules of the sharia (edeb-i eri). Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p. 128/ Fol. 41a,
pp. 131-132 /Fol.42b-43b.

187

It is not valid to attribute the position of ull-emr [only] to temporal

rulers because rulers are considered ull-emr in the exoteric sense, their
orders are sometimes congruent with the sharia and sometimes against
it. Gods religious scholars are ull-emr in the esoteric sense and their
orders are always in congruence with the sharia.487
This is a rather important statement on behalf of Bursevi since he represented the
Sufi sheikhs (ulema billah) as the crystallization of cosmic order and the perfect
manifestations of divine law with their actions and deeds. Just like the prophets, they
were sheltered from misdeeds.488 This stout belief in the purity of the Sufi sheikh
(not just any Sufi sheikh though, the competent one who merged the sharia with the
divine truth) resembled the claims voiced by early Muslim scholars such as Mawardi
and Gazzali regarding the primacy and the clerical purity of the ulema who
claimed themselves to be the inheritors of the prophet Muhammad.489 Since the
service of the prophet was limited to his life time, after his death his duties were
passed on to the sultan and to the Sufi sheikhs: thus submission to the Sufi sheikh
who assumed the function of the prophet was the only way to reach God and as much
important as submitting to the sultan.490 Furthermore those who denied the authority
of the sheikh were put in a position of denying not only the prophet but also the

487

Zira, burada ull-emri mluke tahsis etmek sahih deildir. ol vechden ki mluk zahirde
ull-emrdir ki, emirleri gah ere muvafk ve gah muhalif gelir. Ulema-i billah ise batnda ullemrdir ki, emirleri daima ere muvafkdr. Bursevi, Kitabn-Netice vol. I, p. 317. Similarly Sar
Abdullahs definition of ull-emr in Tedbirn-Neeteyn contained God, the prophet, the sultan
along with the poles and the saints as spiritual caliphs. Sar Abdullah Efendi, Tedbir`n Ne`eteyn fi
Islah`n Nshateyn, pp. 51-52 /Fol.15a.
488

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p. 127 /Fol.40b; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, p. 82/ Fol.
258b, p. 112/ Fol. 296b-297a.
489

Al-Azmeh, Muslim Kingship, pp. 103-106.

490

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i meriyye, p. 84; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye, p. 214/ Fol. 11b; Bursevi,
Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, III, p. 72/ Fol. 247b.

188

Quran and God: Namely, submitting to the prophet and to the successor of the
prophet indicates submitting to God, and two hands are the same. Therefore it is one
of the conditionts of self-control not to disobey the sheikh, since it indicates
disobedience to God and it is disrespect for religion.491 To further justify his
arguments and avoid the pitfall of equating sainthood with prophethood, Bursevi
defined the prophet as the father and the saint as the mother both of whom were
authorized in directing their children whereas the authority of the latter was limited.
By feminizing sainthood vis--vis prophethood he also managed to distinguish the
superiority of the latter. 492
The Sufi sheikh as the saint thus acquired his legitimacy in associating with the
sultan and the society at large from an association with the Prophet: Conversation
with the sheikh is equal to conversation with the prophet.493 The focus on the
prophet was one of the aspects of neo-sufism arguments that regarded the increasing
emphasis of eighteenth and nineteenth century Sufis (operating mostly in the Middle
East and North Africa) on Sunna and following the path of the Prophet as a novel
development indicating the changing direction of Sufi movements. Indeed many of
the neo-sufism arguments claim a transformation in Sufi thought and politics mostly
after the late eighteenth century disregarding that these transformations had their

491

Yani Rasule ve varis-i Rasule mbayaa itmek heman Hakka mbayaadr ve iki el birdir.
Anunn iradetin urutundandr ki eyhe itiraz eylemeye zira Hakka itirazdr ve Hakka itiraz
kfrdr. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, p.334 /Fol. 56a, p. 392 /Fol. 81b.
492

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p. 124/ Fol. 38b.

493

Sohbet-i eyh sohbet-i peygamberdir. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p. 164/ Fol. 60a; In
this world, looking at the face of the perfect man is like looking at the faces of the prophets. Bursevi,
Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, III, p. 93/ Fol. 272a.

189

bases in the previous centuries and in the local dynamics of the contexts within
which Sufis lived. The neo-sufi thesis assumes that this changing direction implied a
sharia-based reformist agenda on behalf of the institutionalized Sufi sheikhs.
However Bursevis extensive focus on the prophet and the saintly Sufi sheikh as his
inheritor had its roots in the formulations of Ibn Arabi and can very well be
associated with the Ottoman Sunnitization process reaching back over at least two
centuries. Particularly in the seventeenth century Sunna-minded Sufi sheikhs like the
Celvetis were already sharing a public discourse of piety and a focus on the Prophet
with the Kadzadeli preachers operating in the Ottoman context.
The position of the sheikh as the inheritor of the prophet was emphasized by
Bursevi particularly in Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye and needs further elaboration to understand
how he viewed the position of the Sufi sheikh conceptualized as a saint (be it the
pole or not) vis--vis political authority.494 In Bursevis texts, saints played a revered
and superior role which had to be recognized even by the rulers and statesmen.495
Saints, because they were regarded as the inheritors of the prophets had to be treated
as prophets were.496 Indeed Bursevi referred to the famous Levlake hadith I would
not create the worlds if it was not for you and suggested that the saints as the
prophets inheritors were also included in the definition, hence conceptualizing the
saints as one of the reasons for the creation of the world.497 Following Ibn Arabi,

494

Chodkiewicz, Seal of the Saints, p. 30, pp. 50-52.

495

Her padiaha bir ehl-i hal eyh gerekdir. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, P. 83/ Fol. 259b.

496

Verese-i enbiya ise enbiya hkmndedir. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, pp. 257-258
/Fol.23b; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye, p. 214 /Fol.11b.
497

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p. 119/ Fol. 35b.

190

Bursevi also claimed that in his age there was no need left for prophethood
(nbvvet) and messengership (risalet) since the true ulema (ulema-i muhakkkin)
were the actual deputies (vekil) of the prophets:
Then, succession at the level of sainthood is sufficient so that there is no
need for the claim to prophethood and de facto messengership, and with
this the perfection of the capacities of the ummah of the deceased
[Prophet Muhammed] has become manifest since their most perfect
ones substituted the prophet.498
According to Bursevi, Prophet Muhammads aspect of prophethood was being
represented by the rules of the sharia while his sainthood/spiritual aspect, also
defined as the esoteric aspect of the Quran (bevatn- Kuran), had passed on to the
sayyids of poles (sadat- aktab).499 Thus, a saint did not necessarily inherit his
prophethood in the legalistic sense of bringing a new set of divine laws to the
temporal world but his sainthood, meaning the esoteric contents of his laws.
Particularly the coming of Muhammed as the seal of prophets had invalidated any
possible successors to his salvationary position. However following Ibn Arabi,
Bursevi suggested that the saints, by virtue of their being conceived as the actual
inheritors of the prophets, could still interpret divine law.500 The Pole was thus
responsible for the maintenance and true interpretation of the rules established by the
seal of the prophets. Bursevis repetitive avowal of the necessity of considering
saints words and deeds as constituting divine law is an indicator both of the

498

Pes velayet mertebesinde vekalet kafi olcak dava-y nbvvete ve bil-fiil risalete hacet
kalmad ve bundan mmet-i merhumenin kemal-i istidad zahir oldu ki ekamil olanlar Cenab-
Nbvvet yerin tutd. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i meriyye, p. 80; Bursevi, Kitabn-Netice vol. II, p. 159.
499

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye p. 119 /Fol.35b, p. 143/ Fol. 48b.

500

Chodkiewicz, Seal of the Saints, p. 51.

191

transparent position of the saint as a channel which transmits the orders of God and
as the inheritor and protector of the prophets legacy:
Nevertheless, common people not comprehending this meaning, get
involved with ego comparison and suppose that the state of the notables
are like theirs. This supposition is corrupt and this belief is ill-willed.
And the words and acts of those who have attained this level correspond
entirely to sharia and divine law so that anyone who accepts them and
perform deeds accordingly finds exclusive salvation. This is the reason
why they esteem the Sunna of the sheikhs and the dhikrs of the saints.501
The sultan on the other hand was a fallible man, and it was not necessarily his
character or person but his power to rule and hence to establish order on earth which
was sacred.502 This power had to be channeled in the right direction under the
guidance of the truly pious religious scholars (whom Bursevi considered Sufi
sheikhs) as the caliphs of the prophet. Through a comparison of the prophet to the
sultan Bursevi said that the majesty of the prophet was derived from his piety while
the sultan needed rituals and regiments to display his power: another example
illustrating the legitimizing aspect of associating with the prophet and being pious for
the authority of the Sufi sheikh. 503 Just like people paid allegiance to the sultan, the
sultan was expected to submit to a sheikh because unlike the prophets and the
sheikhs, sultans were not protected (mahfuz) from sin and did not always act with
justice.

501

Velakin avam- nas bu manay idrak edemeyip kyas- nefs ederler. Ve ahval-i havass
kendi halleri gibi zann ederler. Bu zann ise fasid ve bu itikad kasddr. Ve bu mertebeye vusulu
bulunanlarn akval ve efali bil-cmle eriat ve kanun-i ilahidir ki her kim kabul edip amel ederse
hidayet-i hassa bulur. Onun iin snen-i meayh ve ezkar- evliyaya rabet ederler. Bursevi,
Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, p.237 /Fol.114b-5a.
502

The late sixteenth century bureaucrat Mustafa Ali also commented about the fallibility of
the sultan which led to an inadequate government and the influence of other groups in the governance
of the empire. Fodor, State and Society, Crisis and Reform, p. 30.
503

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Aliyye, p. 203/ Fol. 5a.

192

Maybe if they are just, then they can be like the prophets and the
sheikhs and otherwise the conditions of their subjects and them will be
forlorn. This is why they have said that those rulers who are in
proximity to sheikhs and associated with them are victorious and
otherwise they are despicable.504
Thus, justice was not a quality inherent to the sultan; it had to be uncloaked with the
help of the sheikh. He further argued that by virtue of the role played by the saints in
the establishment of the foundations of the state (vaz- saltanat), it was necessary to
preserve their prayers (nefes).505 They were the columns which held the state and the
social order intact by virtue of the support they provided to those who held political
authority in their hands. In the beginnings of sultanate, the order of the Ottoman
domains was materialized by the supervision of the saints.506 This was the reason
why sultans could not be mnkirs (meaning deniers of saints and Sufism) although
other statesmen and the ulema could. Indeed Bursevi associated the economic, social
and political issues of the empire with these figures who had a bad influence on the
sultan: Their inauspiciousness (eamet) was contagious (bulac).507
Bursevis ideas regarding the influence of saints in the operation of Ottoman
state institutions were mostly influenced by Ibn Arabis conceptualization of

504

Mluk ise byle deildir, belki adil olurlarsa rusul ve uyuh gibi olurlar ve illa
kendilerinin ve etbalarnn ahvali perian olur. Bu yzden demilerdir ki uyuha muttasl ve lahk
olan mluk mansurlardr ve illa mahzullerdir. Yani onlara dahi lazmdr ki, reaya kendilerine
mbayaa ettikleri gibi kendileri dahi verese-i enbiya olan uyuhdan birine mbayaa etmek
lazmdr.Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p. 127-128 /Fol.40b.
505

Ibid; Vaz- saltanat nefes-i evliya zerinedir. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, III, p. 55/

Fol. 229a.
506

Evail-i saltanatta Nizam- mluk- Osmaniyye evliyann nazaryla olmutur. Bursevi,

Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, II, p. 177/ Fol. 198b.
507

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, III, Fol. 228b-229a.

193

sainthood and mystical authority.508 Pursuing Ibn Arabis mystical theory of

rulership, Bursevi claimed that nothing on earth happened without the permission of
the Pole; thus temporal authority of the rulers were subject to the spiritual authority
of the saints. This argument was further justified by his stout belief in the constitutive
nature of saints in the foundation of the Ottoman Empire. As we have seen in the
previous chapters, Bursevi idealized the saint in the figure of a competent Sufi sheikh
who had the authority to engage in the spiritual training of others. Therefore, it was
necessary for the sultan, his vicegerents, statesmen, the grand mufti and all the other
religious scholars to pay allegiance to such a sheikh and enjoin the Sufi path since
each Sufi sheikh had a position within the hierarchical organization of saints and
could help others to benefit from the blessings of the Pole.509 A literal reading of one
of his poems in Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye is indicative of this approach: If you want a state,
recline upon/ A great lodge, a gate/ If it had not leaned its back on Qaba/ No one
would bow down to the mihrab.510

Historical Consciousness of the Sufi

The way in which Bursevi organized Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye reflects very much how he
situated and legitimized the existence not only of the sultan but of the Ottoman state

508

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, p. 361 /Fol.68a; For Ibn Arabis conceptualization of

sainthood, see Chodkiewicz, Seal of the Saints.
509

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, p. 361 /Fol.68a.

510

It should be kept in mind that Bursevi might have used the terms devlet and asitane not
necessarily to indicate the state and the dervisg lodge but as metaphors. Devlet istersen arka ver
arka/ Bir ulu asitane bir baba/ Kabeye vermeseydi arkasn/ Kimse ba emezdi mihraba. Bursevi,
Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p. 140 /Fol.47b.

194

in relation to the prophet, to the pole and the cosmic order of the universe. Starting
the text with a commentary on Gods unity and the prophethood of Muhammad,
Bursevi later on traced Muhammads genealogy up to the prophets Samuel,
Abraham, Noah, Idris, Seth and lastly Adam. Here his focus was on the protected
and pure nature of the prophets posterity which reached back to the first man. What
made Prophet Muhammad superior to others and an exemplary figure was his
moderation/balance (itidal) in terms of his life style, a concept frequently used by
Bursevi in his tuhfes to denote the ideal form of both self and imperial governance.511
What follows the genealogy of the prophet Muhammad is a discussion on the perfect
man and the Pole which culminates in a focus on the significance of the saints (who
are conceptualized as the inheritors of the Muhammadan truth) for the foundation of
the Ottoman state.512 This way, Bursevi established, at least at the symbolic level, a
connection between the prophet Muhammad and the Ottoman state topped by the
sultan. The state received it legitimacy from the prophet but through the mediation of
the saints who claimed to be his inheritors. What follows is an analysis of Bursevis
historical consciousness regarding the foundation of the Ottoman Empire and the role
of the saints in it.
Underlying Bursevis discourse of decline and social/moral decay was a semimythical historical consciousness revolving around a mythical past during which
worldly authority was subject to the religious and spiritual authorities: time of the
prophet Muhammad, Ibn Arabis period and the early Ottoman era being such

511

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye II, pp.145-147/ Fol.169b-170b.

512

Ibid, p.160/ Fol.182a.

195

examples. He especially emphasized the relationship between the Sufi sheikhs and
the state in the first centuries of the empire.513 The existence of close ties between the
two actors during the founding period of the Ottoman state pointed to the original,
constitutive and hence indispensable nature of such ties. Comparing the status of the
poles (aktab) vis-a-vis the sultans to the relationship between the roots of a tree and
its leaves, Bursevi suggested that the fundamental aspects which sustained the
Ottoman state were guarded by the saints (evliya): Maintenance of the state depends
on the maintenance of the perfect man. With his extinction and decline, the faade of
the world is destroyed and the Day of Judgment arrives.514
Although Bursevis approach was rather hyperbolic and idealizing in nature,
the prominence he attributed to Sufis who collaborated with the rulers in the
establishment of the Ottoman state did have some basis in the narrative
(historiographical and hagiographical) sources regarding Ottoman beginnings.
Modern historians have investigated these sources, which emphasized the roles
played by the gazi dervishes and the abdals of Rum not only in the expansion of the
Ottoman territories through their promotion of the gaza ethos in the frontiers but also
in the colonization and islamization of the Balkan populations.515 Many of these gazi
dervishes of eclectic backgrounds collaborated with the state until the fifteenth

513

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, pp. 386-388/Fol.79a-79b; pp. 360-361 /Fol.67b-68a.

514

Baka-i devlet, baka-i insan- kamile menuttur ki, onun fena ve inkrazyla suret-i alem dahi
harab olup tamme-i kbra kaime olur. smail Hakk Bursevi, Kitabn-Netice vol. I ed. Ali Naml
and mdat Yava (Istanbul: nsan Yaynlar, 1997), p. 308.
515

Barkan, Kolonizatr Trk Dervileri; Kafadar, Between Two Worlds, pp. 62-90; Terziolu,
Sunna-Minded Sufi Preachers, p. 234; Terziolu, Sufis in the Age of State Building and
Confessionalization.

196

century centralization efforts of the latter alienated them.516 Bursevi did not make
any reference to the syncretic and combatant nature of these dervishes and their
environment though; he rather focused on the advisory nature of prominent figures
such as Hac Bayram Veli and eyh Ede Bali. However, his resentments regarding
the estrangement of Sufis from the Ottoman state in the early eighteenth century
resembled the nostalgic grievances of marginalized gazi dervishes that were
transmitted in late medieval narratives.517

Seljukids and the Family of Mevlana

According to Bursevi, since the foundations of the Ottoman Empire, sultans had paid
heed to the advices of the sheikhs and saints of their times, consulting them in issues
of religion and righteous government, and this provided their rule divine legitimacy.
For the pre-Ottoman period, Bursevi provided the example of the Seljukid ruler
handing over the government to Mevlana Celaleddin Rumi, telling him: The state is
not mine, is yours.518 In fact the relationship between Seljukid authorities and the
family of Mevlana had started with his fathers arrival in Konya sometime in the
1220s. In Menakibl-Arifin (a fourteenth century compilation of Mevlevi
hagiographies) Bahaeddin Veled, Mevlanas father is represented as a powerful and

516

Terziolu, Sunna-Minded Sufi Preachers, pp. 138-150.

517

Kafadar, Between Two Worlds.; For the centralization policies of Mehmed II see Ahmet
Yaar Ocak, Fatih, Fetih ve Osmanl Merkeziyetilii, in Yenialar Anadolusunda slamn Ayak
zleri: Osmanl Dnemi (Istanbul: Kitap Yaynevi, 2011) pp. 36-50.
518

Ibid.

197

pious man who at first refused the invitation of the sultan on account of his alcohol
addiction and fondness for the harp. It is after these criticisms that the ruler decided
to quit his habits just to receive the favor of Bahaeddin Veled. Aflaki narrates that
the sultan even kissed the latters knee.519 Although Menakbl-Arifin provides
many examples of Mevlanas association with political authority, in this work, a
sentence very similar to the abovementioned one related by Bursevi is attributed to
Mevlanas father instead. The Seljukid ruler says to him: Oh king of religion, I am a
bondsman. After today I want to be your suba and I want Our Master to exercise
the office of sultan. Indeed, the outer and the inner sultanate has long since belonged
to you.520 The loyalty of Alaaddin Keykubad to Bahaaddin Veled is very much
emphasized in this text since a couple of pages later we see the sultan saying: I
wanted the Sultan of the Religious Scholars to sit on the throne with complete
independence and for me to be his army commander so that I would undertake his
conquests and obtain spiritual gifts.521 If Bursevi was acquainted with this work
then his strong and frequent emphasis on the wisdom of the Seljukid sultan is
understandable since he is reflected in Menakbl-Arifin as having surrendered
almost all of his authority to the Mevlana family. In fact coupled by his acquaintance
with and respect towards Hac Bekta Veli, Alaaddin Keykubad (whom Bursevi
addressed as Alauddin Seluki) stood out as one of the exemplary rulers Bursevi
looked up to. He respected Sufis and subjected his government to the rule of religion.

519

Shams al-Din Ahmad Aflaki, The Feats of the Knowers of God: Manaqeb al-arefin, ed.
John OKane (Leide; Boston: Brill, 2002) pp. 21-22.
520

Ibid, p. 23.

521

Ibid, p. 25.

198

Hac Bekta Veli and Ottoman Beginnings

Bursevi suggested that Hac Bekta Veli had not only supervised the establishment of
the janissary army but also the foundations of the Ottoman Empire through an
encounter with Osman. According to the story he recounted, Osman was on his way
to receive some advice from Hac Bekta Veli when he had to stay overnight at a
house. The room in which he was to sleep contained a copy of the Quran: upon
acquiring this piece of information, Osman supposedly spent the whole night on his
feet out of respect for the holy book. On his way he encountered the saint who coiled
up a piece of rag on top of his scepter like a banner and gave it to Osman, wishing
Gods grace to be upon him.522 The imagery of the scepter of the saint transforming
into the banner of the prophet Muhammad pointed out to the coalition of spiritual
and political authorities at the inception of the empire. The story served other
didactic purposes as well: Osman had attained the right to rulership on account of his
respect for the Quran and the consent of the saint. Thus the legitimacy for rule was
not derived directly from God but through the mediation of the saint who was
believed to enact nothing but the will of God. Bursevi suggested that it was necessary
for every sultan to submit to a competent sheikh and to ask for advice from saints
(even the dead ones) when they were in need. It was not enough that the bond was
established by Osman and Hac Bekta Veli at inception; this bondage had to be
maintained for the perpetuity of the Ottoman state.523

522

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, III, p.80 /Fol.256b-257a.

523

Ibid, pp. 80-82/ Fol.257a-257b.

199

It is interesting that Hac Bekta Veli was regarded not only as the patron saint
of the janissaries but almost the founding figure of an empire by Bursevi and many
other Ottoman scholars. Although the exact time of the emergence of these semimythical narratives are not known, the hagiographies of saints seem to have been
very influential in their diffusion. Since he did not provide any references to the
sources of his stories, it is difficult to distinguish the works and narratives which
shaped Bursevis intellectual world. However it seems highly probable that Bursevi
was acquainted with the saints hagiography, Vilayetname, of which the earliest
surviving copy dates back to seventeenth century. Indeed in Vilayetname, there is a
section about Hac Bekta Veli as the founding saint, but the main figure he
associates with is Osmans father, Erturul. Similar to the beginning of Bursevis
story, here we see Erturul setting off to see the famous saint upon the death of his
brother who was a sancak be. His aim is to receive the prayers of the saint and to
take permission to replace his brother. Then the saint says: We are seated upon your
heart, we speak through your tongue, we make you seem nice to him [the ruler of the
Anatolian Seljuks] and you take your brothers sanjak.524 Furthermore he informs
Erturul that his and his sons souls are held within the realm of sainthood, pointing
to the approval of the saint for future rulers to come from his progeny.525
Although there is no reference to the Quran story as related by Bursevi,
Vilayetname had also a section on Osman. He was represented as an intrepid gazi

524

Abdlbaki Glpnarl, Manakb- Hac Bekt- Vel "Vilyet-nme, (Istanbul: nkilap

Kitabevi, 1958), pp. 71-75.
525

Ibid, p. 72.

200

making raids to Bursa and thus aggravating the ruler of the Anatolian Seljuks who
had made a covenant of peace with the governor of Bursa. When the Seljuki court
encounters Osman, they are awed by his presence and not knowing what to do, they
decide to receive the opinion of Hac Bekta Veli. The saint gives his headgear (elifi
tac), his belt and a candle to Osman along with counsels and tekbirs (saying God is
Almighty). It is also from Hac Bekta Veli that he receives the right to rule since the
saint gives his own title hnkar (sovereign, sultan) to Osman.526 On the issue Bursevi
exclaimed: It is true that the ancestor of the Ottoman rulers, Osman Gazi, had
established the domains and the state with respect to Quran and the prayers of the
wise ones. Alauddin Seluki, who gave him authorization, was also of the Sufi path.
527

It is clear that Bursevi included Hac Bekta in the category of ehl-i irfan (the

wise ones) and acknowledged the association of the Seljukid ruler and Osman.
Contrary to Ak Paazades claims that neither the early Ottoman sultans nor
the outfit of janissaries had anything to do with the Bektashis, Vilayetname (in a
similar line to Kavanin-i Yenieriyan as shall be seen subsequently) suggested that
the janissary head gear (ak brk) had in fact come from Osman who had received it
from Hac Bekta himself. Bursevis abovementioned narrative seems to have
adopted elements from the stories of Erturul and Osman. It is also possible that
Bursevi articulated new veins into the narrative based on his imagination. A detailed
study on Hac Bekta Veli hagiographies might reveal further information regarding

526

Ibid, pp. 71-75.

527

Asl budur ki mluk- Osmaniyyenin ceddi Osman Gazi mlk devleti tazim-i Kuran ve
enfas- ehl-i irfan ile bulmudur ki ol kendni mezun iden Aladdin-i Seluki erbab- tarikatten idi.
Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, p. 360/ Fol.67b.

201

the sources of these stories. Consulting the saint (whom he equated with the Sufi
sheikh) and obeying to his will were the most important aspects of these narratives
and the ideal way to solve difficult political and religious issues according to
Bursevi. This association between the saints and the rulers at the inception of the
empire was one of the most emphasized aspects of the relationship between spiritual
and political authorities for Bursevi. On account of this relationship the sultanate was
not only legitimate and victorious but its sustenance had also helped the maintenance
of order until his time when the ties between the saints and the rulers were severed.
Bursevi did not forget to mention that the Ottoman rulers had blood ties with
saints since Osmanson and successor, Orhan Gazi, was believed to be born to the
daughter of Sheikh Ede Bali, a prominent gazi dervish whose name was mentioned
in many Ottoman hagiographies and histories.528 In these sources, Sheikh Ede Bali
was not only conceived as a genealogical link between the saints and Ottoman
sultans but also as the interpreter of Osmans famous tree dream regarding the
formation of the empire.529 Besides the chronicles and hagiographies that assert the
familial ties between Sheikh Ede Bali and Osman, Kafadar points to a document
which refers to Ede Bali as Osmans father-in-law. Although not conclusive, the
availability of such a document when coupled with the existing narratives indicates
the wide-spread acceptance of the association between these two families.530 On the

528

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, p. 361/ Fol.68a.

529

Ahmet Yaar Ocak invites the reader to take a critical stance on the mythical nature of such
attributions. Ahmet Yaar Ocak, Ahilik ve eyh Ede Bali: Osmanl Devletinin Kurulu Tarihi
Asndan Bir Sorgulama, in Yenialar Anadolusunda slamn Ayak zleri (stanbul: Kitap
Yaynevi, 2011) pp. 13-22.
530

Kafadar, Between Two Worlds, pp. 129.

202

issue of the dream interpretation, Kafadar argues that the tree dream must have
entered into the narratives at least after the sedentarization of Ottomans since it
envisioned a future sedentary rule. However, the exact identity of the dream
interpreter is not known: he has been defined not only as Sheikh Ede Bali but also as
Hac Bekta and Abdlaziz in various narratives.531

Hac Bekta Veli and the Janissary army

The foundations of the sultanate indeed were established upon the

prayers/breaths/souls of the saints, and the conditions of the state were organized in
this way.532 The saints had overseen the establishment of the foundations of the
Ottoman state which according to Bursevi consisted of two groups. The first one
consisted of the members of the military: janissary (yenieri), cavalry soldiers
(sipahi), artilleries (topu) and armored soldiers (cebeci).533 And the second group
included the members of the central administration: viziers of the dome (vzera-i
kubbe) whom Bursevi equated with the Seven Sleepers (ashab- kehf).534 All other

531

Ibid, pp. 132-133.

532

Erkan- saltanat fil-asl enfas- evliya zerine tesis olunmu ve etvar- devlet ol vechile
tertib klnmtr. Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Vesimiyye, p.128 /Fol.40b; for a similar expression see Bursevi,
Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, III p. 55/ Fol.229a.
533

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, III, pp. 79-80 /Fol.255a-256a.

534

These are the seven Christians who are believed to have taken refuge in a cave near Ephesus
to escape from the persecutions of the pagan Roman emperor. The emperor upon finding out their
hiding place covers up the entrance of the cave so as to let the youngsters die inside. According to the
Quranic narrative, they sleep in the cave for three hundred years until they are finally awakened by a
divine calling. They are revered as saints and remembered as Yedi Uyurlar in Turkish; Bursevi,

203

Ottoman institutions were established on these two with the virtues of saints, and
each institution had an esoteric meaning which connoted the names of God that
institution made manifest in the temporal world as has been mentioned previously.535
However Bursevis approach to the foundations of the empire carried anachronistic
tones since he attributed the characteristics of an Ottoman state with a centralized
army and administration which took its form as such only in the fifteenth century to
the beginnings of the empire in hindsight. It was only in the seventeenth century that
the number of viziers who attended divan councils increased up to seven with the
expansion of the administrative cadre, and it was only in the fifteenth century that the
janissary army was fully institutionalized based on the devshirme system.
For Bursevi, it was Hac Bekta Veli who had overseen the establishment of
the janissary army whose power came from angels.536 The janissary agha, by virtue
of his position as the supervisor of soldiers, resembled the Sufi sheikh who
undertook the spiritual training of dervishes. The reason why the head of the order
was called agha and not sheikh was his concern for worldly affairs.537 Thus Bursevi
fully acknowledged and supported the relationship between the janissaries and the
Bektashi order. In Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, he started the section on the janissary agha
with a poem in which he addressed him as Hac Bekta Ocann Kei, a title also

Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, p. 361 /Fol.68a; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, III, p. 70 /Fol.245a; Bursevi,
Tuhfe-i Aliyye, p.229 /Fol.20a; Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye II, pp. 201-202 /Fol.220a.
535

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, p. 375 /Fol.74a; This issue is further explained in Tuhfe-i
Hasekiyye in which Bursevi gives seperate accounts of each Ottoman institution and the divine names
and attributes related to them: Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, III.
536

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, III, p. 69/ Fol. 244a-b, p. 80/ Fol.256b-257a.

537

Ibid, p. 84/ Fol. 260b.

204

espoused by the janissaries in associating themselves with the Bektashi order.538 A

similar title they used was taife-i Bektaiyye (the Bektashi community).539 The
relationship between the Bektashis and the janissary army is a much renown issue
which has been constructed with slightly different narratives in the works of early
modern Ottomans.540 For example fifteenth century historian Akpaazade claimed
that the janissaries were founded during the reign of Murad I with the counsels of a
wise Kara Rstem from the Karaman region and the grand vizier andarl Kara Halil
Hayreddin Pasha. Kara Rstem had supposedly informed the sultan about the latters
right to keep one fifth of the prisoners of war for his own service according to divine
law. After that, with the initiatives of the grand vizier and Gazi Evrenos, it had
become a custom to keep prisoners of war, teach them Turkish and turn them into
janissary soldiers.541 Nowhere in this narrative do we come across a mention of Hac
Bekta in influencing the formation of this devshirme army though. Ak Paazade
even refused the association of the white headgear of the janissaries (resembling the
Bektashi elifi tac542) with that of the Bektashi dervishes. He claimed that it was
Abdal Musa, a Bektashi dervish who saw and adopted the headgear from the
janissaries during a gaza campaign he attended. It is clear from Ak Paazades

538

J. K. Birge, The Bektashi Order of Dervishes, (London: Luzac Oriental, 1937), p. 74.

539

Suraiya Faroqhi, Anadoluda Bektailik, (Istanbul: Simurg, 2003) p. 138.

540

For a short overview of the chapters related to Bektashis in Mevlana sas history written
after 1543 see: Barbara Flemming, Mevlana sa on Bektashis, pp. 159-163.
541

Ak Paazade, Osmanoullarnn Tarihi, ed. Kemal Yavuz and M. A. Yekta Sara

(Istanbul: K Kitapl, 2003) pp. 382-383.
542

According to the Vilayetname, the elifi tac was given to Prophet Muhammad by God
through Gabriel. And from the angel, it passed on to the Caliph Ali, other imams, Ahmet Yesevi and
lastly to Hac Bekta Veli. A cloak, candle, table, banner and prayer rug were also transmitted. Birge,
Bektashi Order of Dervishes, p. 37.

205

account that he regarded the Bektashis as a marginal, antinomian group with rather
deviant practices such as smoking opium, wearing earrings and engaging in devilish
deeds and worked to disprove the association between them and the centralizing
janissary army.543 Indeed his need to refute the Bektashi associations signals the
orders increasing popularity at the time. It is curious that among all the saints, Hac
Bekta Veli was chosen as the patron saint of the janissaries. Kkyaln seeks the
reasons for the preference for Hac Bekta in the Babai Rebellion which took place in
1239/1240 and suggests that starting with Erturul, the proto-Ottomanids and the
early Ottoman sultans were members of a semi-nomadic heterodoxy which was later
to be called Bektashism.544 It is plausible to argue that a shared belonging to the
thirteenth century early Ottoman culture (particularly to the Vefai sect) with its
syncretic beliefs yielded an approachment between Hac Bekta and the Ottoman
sultans who found in his figure an ideal patron saint for their newly forming army.
As opposed to Ak Paazades history, an early seventeenth century (1606)
text regarding the janissary codes, Kavanin-i Yenieriyan, associated the formation
of the army with Timurta Dede (one of the sons of Hac Bekta Veli), Emirah
Efendi whose descent reached back to Mevlana and a certain vizier named Bekta

543

Ak Paazade, Osmanoullarnn Tarihi, p. 571-572; Birge, Bektashi Order of Dervishes,

p. 46.
544

Via Hac Bekta, they were connected to the Baba lyasid version of Vefai sect and they
had fought to protect both their faith and their Sultan against the rebels, and were on the side of Hac
Bekta. Erdal Kkyaln, Janissary and Samurai: Early Modern Warrior Classes and Religion,
(M.A. thesis, Boazii University, 2007), pp. 46-47. Karayaln also provides a detailed analysis of
the Babai Rebellion and its relevance for understanding the relationship between the cult of Hac
Bekta and the janissaries, see pp. 10-47.

206

Paa.545 The anonymous author of the text (who claimed to be of janissary

background) strongly emphasized the influence of the saints in Ottoman
conquests.546 He suggested that the codes, clothing and practices of the janissaries
(such as the reverence for Ali, celibacy and not growing beard until maturity) were
also adopted from the abovementioned saints: an argument very much in line with
Bursevis.547 The authors extensive accent on the significance of saintly figures may
be taken as a sign of the diffusiveness of the cult of saints, particularly that of Hac
Bekta Veli but not limited to him, among the soldiers. It is also interesting that in
this text the army is associated both with Mevlana and Hac Bekta. Ocaks analysis
shows that in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, starting with Bayezid II
the sultans tried to establish a balance between the Mevlevis and Bektashis. On the
one hand Bayezid II showed his respect for the Mevlevis by engaging in the
reconstruction of Mevlanas tomb in Konya. On the other hand he also provided
grants and waqf lands to important Bektashi lodges.548 Thus a Mevlevi association
with the janissaries in Kavanin-i Yenieriyan might be taken as an indicator of the
rising influence of Mevlevis in the ruling circles since the sixteenth century.
Mevlana and Hac Bekta were indeed represented as seemingly two rival
figures in Menakibl-Arifin. Here one comes across a frequent attempt at portraying

545

Kavanin-i Yenieriyan, Tayfun Toroser (ed.) (Istanbul: Bankas Yaynlar, 2011) p. 12.

546

Ibid, p. 57.

547

Ibid, p. 15, p. 56, p. 58; For a detailed discussion about the Bektashi practices prevalent
among the Janissaries see Kkyaln, Janissary and Samurai, pp. 87-149.
548

Ahmet Yaar Ocak, Trkiye Tarihinde Merkezi ktidar ve Mevleviler Meselesine Ksa Bir
Bak, 13.-18. Yzyllar, in Yenialar Anadolusunda slamn Ayak zleri: Osmanl Dnemi
(Istanbul: Kitap Yaynevi, 2011) p. 69.

207

Mevlana as superior to Hac Bekta Veli while the latter is depicted as a deviant who
neither abided by the rules of the sharia nor the Sunna.549 Indeed this depiction seems
to be in line with that of Ak Paazade who claimed Hac Bekta to be a meczub and
regarded the Bektashis as heretics.550 According to Irene Melikoff, Bektashis were
indeed associated with many antinomian groups inter alia the Kalenderis, Rafzis and
Hurufis and influenced by Shia groups such as the Kzlba making the composition
of the brotherhood rather syncretic and sometimes suspicious in the eyes of the
state.551
A detailed study on late seventeenth and eighteenth century Bektashi relations
with the central administration and the changing nature of their beliefs and practices
is beyond the scope of this chapter but would provide beneficial in shedding light on
how a sharia-abiding sunna-minded Sufi sheikh like Bursevi managed to adopt the
figure of Hac Bekta associated with the controversial Bektashis openly in his
texts.552 It is highly likely that Bursevi handled Hac Bekta Veli separately from the
later Bektashis who were one of the groups still being tagged as deviant Sufis during
the seventeenth century religious discussions based on a discourse of piety and
religious innovation. For example in 1665, a Bektashi lodge near Edirne was

549

Aflaki, The Feats of the Knowers, pp. 263-264, pp. 343-344.

550

Ak Paazade, Osmanoullarnn Tarihi, pp. 571-572.

551

Irene Melikoff, Hac Bekta- Veli: Efsaneden Geree, (stanbul: Cumhuriyet, 1998), pp.
89-91, p. 169, 173, p. 178; On the relationship between Kalenderis and Bektashis see: Ocak, Osmanl
Sufiliine Baklar, pp. 120-132; On Bektashi-Kzlba associations see Suraiya Faroqhi, Bektashis:
Report on Current Research, in Bektachiyya: Etudes sur lordre mystique des Bektachis et les
groupes relevant de Hadji Bektach (eds.) Alexandre Popovic and Gilles Veinstein (Istanbul: Isis,
1995) pp. 15-21.
552

For the relationship between the janissary army, the central administration and the Bektashi
lodges in the seventeenth and eighteenth century see: Faroqhi, Anadoluda Bektailik, pp. 121-156.

208

destroyed by the fervent Kadzadeli followers.553 But in his tuhfes, Bursevi neither
criticized the janissaries for their incessant uprisings nor their Bektashi affiliations.
Since in the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the strength of the Bektashi
order was based more in the provincial towns in Rumelia and Anatolia (rather than in
Istanbul or Bursa where Bursevi spent the majority of his life) it is also possible that
he did not conceive them as an immediate threat.554 Suraiya Faroqhi claims that since
the later part of the sixteenth century the sheikhs of the central Bektashi lodge Hac
Bekta were granted privileges for acting as an agent of assimilation and
acculturation hence mediating between the state and the provincial Bektashi lodges
and Kzlba sympathizers.555 If this is true then by the time of Bursevi, it is plausible
to believe that the relationship between the central state and the order had become
rather stabilized. This could explain Bursevis favorable approach towards the
Bektashi order and its affiliation with the janissaries as well.

Selim I and Ibn Arabi

Selim I was one of the sultans who was revered by Bursevi for paying homage to Ibn
Arabi by cleaning his grave upon entering Damascus as anticipated by his famous
oracle about the sultans conquests in the Near East described in a book attributed to

553

Zilfi, Discordant Revivalism in Seventeenth, p. 263-4.

554

Faroqhi, Bektashis: Report on Current, p. 21.

555

Faroqhi, "Conflict, Accommodation and Long-term Survival: The Bektashi Order and the
Ottoman State" in Bektachiyya, tudes sur l'ordre mystique des Bektachis et les groupes relevant de
Hadji Bektash, eds. Alexandre Popovic and Gilles Veinstein (Istanbul: ISIS Publications, 1995), pp.
171-184. p. 180.

209

him: Shajarat al Numaniyyah fi Dawlat al-Uthmaniyyah. Although this book was

believed to describe the formation of the Ottoman Empire long before it existed, the
earliest copy dates back to sixteenth century. It thus seems like a dubious attribution
to Ibn Arabi.556 Still when Selim I arrived in Damascus, he located Ibn Arabis
grave and ordered the execution of necessary renovations which would materialize
the great sheikhs famous prophecy which supposedly indicated that when the letter
s entered the letter , Ibn Arabis grave would be discovered. The Ottoman
ulema believed this to be a sign of Sultan Selims (signified by the letter s)
conquest of Damascus (am, hence the letter ). Furthermore, the sultan not only
ordered Sheikh Mekki (d. 1519) to write a book about Ibn Arabi but also
commissioned authors to write commentaries on Fsusul-Hikem. The defense book
el-Canibl Garbi fi halli mkilat eyh Muhyiddin Ibnl-Arabi which was written
in Persian by Mekki was later on translated into Turkish by the chief judge and poet
Ahmed Neyli Efendi (d. 1748) in the eighteenth century with the title el-FazlulVehbi fi tercemetil-Canibil-Garbi.557 There seems to be a conscious effort on behalf
of the sultan to claim the heritage of Ibn Arabi in the Ottoman context as a patron of
literary works. The Ibn Arabi prophecy not only legitimized the expansionist
policies of the Ottoman sultan at the time but also created a mystical aura around his
rule by associating him with a famous saint. This was one of the reasons why

556

In an interview published online, Mahmud Erol Kl, a scholar on Sufism (particularly the
thought of Ibn Arabi), has refuted the claims regarding Ibn Arabis authorship of this text. He argues
that Shajarat al Numaniyye is not listed among the two hundred and fifty titles which Ibn Arabi
provided as his books during his stay in Aleppo. Ibn Arabi Kahin Deil
http://www.ibnulArabi.com/mak04.htm. Accessed on 29 September 2011.
557

eyh Mekki Efendi, bn Arabi Mdafaas, transl. Ahmed Neyli Efendi, (ed.) Halil Baltac
(Istanbul: Gelenek, 2004) p. 17.

210

subsequent Sufi sheikhs revered Selim I as the protector of Sufi teachings and
regarded his reign as an ideal period. According to Bursevi Selim I had received the
eternal protection of the saint and hence was remembered as a glorious sultan even
decades after his death.558
In Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, Bursevi also provided the example of how Ibn Arabi
advised the sultan of Aleppo on many issues just in one day and how the sultan
obediently listened to his words and did not regard his advice as burden.559 This for
Bursevi was the ideal form of interaction between a saint and a ruler and the fact that
it lacked in his times was the reason of disorder. He bemoaned that unlike previous
times, in his age both the rulers and common people were unaware of the virtues of
being in the presence of erbab- kulub (literally meaning people of the heart,
indicating the sheikhs/saints) and listening to their words. Hence without the
presence of competent people to guide them, they were receiving neither divine
benediction nor protection.560

Aziz Mahmud Hdayi and Ahmed I

It is plausible to think that while making these comments, Bursevi mostly had in
mind Hdayis rather extensive influence in politics as a Sufi sheikh. More than once
he referred to the reign of Ahmed I who, in the face of rising Celali rebellions in the

558

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Recebiyye, pp. 389-390 /Fol.80a-80b.

559

Ibid, p. 354 /Fol. 65a.

560

Ibid., p. 357/ Fol.66a.

211

lands of Anatolia, had resorted to Hdayi to ask for advice. Upon this request,
Hdayi, with his extensive spiritual capacities acted as an exemplary advisor and
pointed to Kuyucu Murad Paa as the man who would resolve the issue.561 Ahmed I
did not merely treat Hdayi as a mentor, he had also enjoined the Sufi path under his
guidance to correct himself. On account of their allegiance to Hdayi both Ahmed I
and the grand vizier Halil Paa were still remembered well by the people; particularly
Halil Paa, by virtue of his tombs proximity to that of Hdayi was receiving
continued blessings.562 The histories of the period shed light on Hdayis role as a
negotiator between different power groups in the early seventeenth century; it was
not uncommon for disgraced statesmen like Halil Paa (for his unsuccessful
campaigns in the east) to take refuge in Hdayis lodge after being dismissed from
office.563
Hdayis relationship with Ahmed I constituted the climactic point in the
history of Ottoman Sufism for Bursevi who explicitly resented the increasing
distance between Sufi sheikhs and the sultans after Ahmed I.564 He also made very
brief references to the conversations between Sultan Ibrahim and the Celveti sheikh
Cennet Efendi and the counsels of Osman Fazl to Sultan Mehmed IV. Neither sultan
had followed the Sufi path to improve their religious morality and piety, but at least

561

Ibid., p. 386/ Fol.79a.

562

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, III, p. 55 /Fol.228a.

563

Naima, Tarih-i Naima, p. 448.

564

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, III, p. 53/ Fol.226a, pp. 55-56/ Fol.229a.

212

they had not denied the significance of saints.565 It is very clear in Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye
that Bursevi regarded the ruling elite after Mehmed IV as mnkirs (deniers of saints
and Sufism) since he suggested that until his time there were no sultans who were
deniers of sheikhs while after his reign particularly the viziers and religious scholars
had lost their souls and become sinners who felt enmity towards the saints.566

smail Hakk Bursevi and the Sufi-State Relations

By providing a short history of the relationship between Sufis and the state, Bursevi
not only highlighted the constitutive nature of Sufis in the establishment of the
empire but also made a comment about the state of contemporary Ottoman politics
which according to him marginalized Sufi sheikhs. If one is to speculate on the
historical plausibility of such resentment, the fact that actors such as the Kadzadeli
preachers gained increasing visibility in the public and political spheres in the
seventeenth century may be regarded as one of the reasons for the perceived decline
in the direct association of Celveti sheikhs with the rulers.567 From the mid-sixteenth
century until their suppression and exile, figures like stvani Mehmed and Vani
Efendi who occupied the post of the sultans preceptor, exerted incredible amount of
influence both on the sultan and in the palace circle. During this period, the Celveti
sheikhs seem to have relegated to the background in terms of their relationship with

565

Ibid., p. 55/ Fol.228b.

566

Ibid. p. 55-56/ Fol. 228b- 229b.

567

Zilfi, The Politics of Piety, pp. 129-181.

213

the sultan. Interestingly they have not composed any known tracts of advice to the
sultans unlike their contemporary Halvetis either. However, this shall not imply an
immediate fall in the influence of Celvetis in the political milieus; association with
political authority had already started to take different forms in the seventeenth
century with the increasing economic and political power of different factions. In that
respect, Bursevis sheikh Osman Fazls relationship with the grand viziers of his
time and his respectable position as a counselor on political issues (as has been
discussed in the chapter on Bursevis life) indicates the rising significance of the
grand vizier. According to Tezcan, in the eighteenth century, the ruling elites had
reached a political consensus regarding the nature of the state as a separate institution
from the dynasty of the sultan. This was a form of governance whose direction was
very much shaped by the operation of vizieral families, with the influence of sultans,
preceptors and jurists (except for the grand mufti Feyzullah) stabilized if not
minimalized.568
Indeed Feyzullahs monopoly on both the office of the grand mufti and the
preceptor which lasted until 1703 must have been one of the factors why Bursevi
found his opportunity to relate with the sultan extremely limited. And after Feyzullah
the office of the preceptor/mentor gradually lost its significance. The grand muftis
association with the Naqshbandi order through the sheikh Murad- Buhari (d. 1720),
the spread of the Naqshbandi-Mujaddidis in the empire and the increasing integration
of Bayrami-Melamis into the ruling elites (along with their approachment to the
Naqshbandis) are also issues which point to a diffusion of power and the changing

568

Tezcan, Politics of Early Modern, pp. 195-196.

214

equilibrium among different Sufi orders.569 Thus, when trying to contextualize

Bursevis resentments regarding the estrangement of spiritual and political authority,
we should take into consideration also the changing alliances between different Sufi
orders and political milieus.
In the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries there was an expansion in
the forms of association with power groups both within and outside the palace circle
through patronage. Particularly the court (with an increasing importance attached to
the positions of the palace staff such as the chief eunuch, chief gardener, etc.) had
emerged as a locus of political power to suppress the influence of the vizieral
households.570 Therefore, although Bursevi did not operate as the personal sheikh or
the mentor of a sultan, he managed to relate with different networks of power and
patronage not only through association with the grand vizier orlulu Ali Paa but
also with members of the palace staff who by the early eighteenth century had
become quite visible not only in politics but also in the public sphere through
different forms of artistic and architectural patronage.
Bursevi did not necessarily attribute a particular period in history a
homogeneous golden age although he conceived continuity in the period starting
from the early Ottoman beginnings since the time of Osman II. For example once he
dated the beginnings of decline after the reign of Murad I. It was after him that
alcohol and bribery started to become widespread since during his time Murad I

569

imek, Osmanlda Mceddidilik, p. 112, pp. 120-121, pp. 142-143.

570

Tezcan, The Second Ottoman Empire, pp. 93-108.

215

would immediately dismiss any governor or judge who oppressed the people.571 Still
until the early seventeenth century there was order and stability because the sultans
had paid heed to the guidance of the sheikhs. After Ahmed I, there is a perceived
rupture in the position of the Sufi sheikh vis--vis political authority. The timing of
this rupture is indeed very much in line with the views of Ottoman authors who were
commenting at an unprecedented rate particularly since the late sixteenth century on
an Ottoman decline. Bursevis vision regarding the estrangement of political
authority from spiritual authority (represented by the saintly Sufi sheikhs) hence shall
not be regarded merely as a reflection of the ageless clich of the disorder of the
times (ihtilal-i zaman)572, but as a discourse which very much reflected the way in
which Bursevi perceived a historical decline in the relationship of the Sufi sheikh
with political authority and its implications for social and political order. It was
within the language of Sufism that Bursevi defined decline, a better past, the
problems of contemporary Ottoman governance and the necessary actions to
establish order back again. Howard emphasized the literary aspect of this focus on
order and disorder as a nearly universal metaphor of creation for it was used by
writers in different periods and contexts. It connoted a shared mythical understanding
of the order of the world and creation which was rooted in a common reservoir of
stories, images and concepts handed down from generation to generation.573 For the
historian, the way in which such literary tropes of mythical quality were manipulated

571

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, II, p. 189/ Fol. 209b.

572

Bursevi, Tuhfe-i Hasekiyye, III, p. 74 /Fol.250b.

573

Howard, Genre and Myth, pp. 163-164.

216

by authors of diverse backgrounds in different historical contexts is still an essential

aspect of analysis.
To sum it up, Bursevi regarded the alienation of political authority (of which
the sultan was the main source) from spiritual authorities (represented by the
competent Sufi sheikh) as the main cause of what he reflected as Ottoman decay.
Therefore, he incepted a Sufi layer and interpretation to all the existing discussions
on Ottoman decline, proving that there is not a homogenous decline paradigm. The
conditions of the Sufi sheikh as the perfect merger of spiritual and temporal worlds
and their requirements constituted an example for the ideal form of government
which Bursevi resented did not exist in his time. Therefore the sultan and all the
other representatives of political authority were expected to submit to the will of the
Sufi sheikh and receive his guidance. This was necessary not only to organize their
self-governance but also the way in which they exercised power in the governing of
the empire. Indeed these two forms of government were perceived as being
intricately linked both to ane another and to the cosmic order of things. Bursevi thus
projected his conceptualization of a perfect Sufi equilibrium based on a sharia
abiding Sunni morality onto the organization of political authority as an ideal vision
of imperial governance.

217

CHAPTER VII
CONCLUSION

This study proposes first and foremost that the changes in the structure of the
Ottoman state and the expansion of the political nation were reflected in the way in
which Sufi sheikhs affiliated with political authority in the eighteenth century. By the
time of smail Hakk Bursevi, the sultan had retreated to the background as a mere
symbol of imperial power. Thus sufi-state relationships started to focus more on
actors such as the grand viziers, governors and people from the palace circle who
formed different loci of power and had influence in the decision making processes
more than before.
This changing relationship with the state was a result of the separation of the
state from the person of the sultan and the increasing importance of viziers and
bureaucrats in the governance of the empire. Although Bursevi perceived this novel
form of sufi-state association as a sign of decline in the position of the sufi sheikh
vis-a-vis political authority, indeed this was only a reflection of the historical realities
of the period. For Bursevi, an absolutist centralized state headed by the sultan
continued to be the ideal form of rule since he continuously emphasized the
centrality of sultan-sufi relations for a better government. Hence he regretted the
transformation in the organization of the state to a more decentralized form whereas
this was not necessarily a decline but indicated a different form of association with
political power.

218

The change was reflected also in the way patronage relations were formulated.
None of Bursevis tuhfes were dedicated to a sultan but to other actors in the political
sphere such as the grand vizier, the governor of Damascus, janissary and people from
the palace staff. While in the previous centuries, these people came from devshirme
background and were trained to be loyal only to the sultan. In the seventeenth
century, they started to come more from the ranks of wealthy commoners who
established their own networks of loyalties apart from the sultan. Particularly the
early eighteenth century, the era recalled as the Tulip Age, witnessed a rise in the
visibility of previously under-represented groups in literary works (i.e. the rise in the
biographies of grand viziers) and architectural and artistic production through
patronage. Since the act of writing is a political action itself, by writing tuhfes for
these people Bursevi entered into the prevailing forms of association with socioeconomic and political power groups as well.
Bursevis prolific tuhfe writing and inclusion of his religio-political discussions
and the mystical theory of rulership in his texts which did not necessarily address the
sultan or high-ranking statesmen implied also a wider circulation of these notions
among diverse groups. The fact that Bursevi composed his texts in simple Turkish
with a conscious effort to reach audiences beyond the Sufi circles was also an
indicator of this process. While the most important sources for political thought have
been regarded as treatises of advice, tuhfe as a form beyond genres yields the way for
an analysis of the circulation, and diffusion of representations of political authority in
different textual forms which address different audiences.
As a Sufi sheikh, Bursevis view of political authority was very much shaped
by his religious sensibilities. In the eighteenth century, against a state apparatus
219

formed by relatively secular administrators coming from bureaucratic backgrounds,

Bursevi still pursued the ideal of a political authority that worked hand in hand with
spiritual authority. Indeed his perception of an estrangement between these two
authorities represented by the sultan on the one hand and the Sufi sheikh on the other
can be taken as a reaction against the early modern historical process in which the
state was demystified and rationalized. Thus in his texts, Bursevi was indeed
responding to the process albeit in a rather conservative manner. Bursevi
conceptualized not only the sultan but the entire state organization as the
manifestation of the names of God. Thus we can speak of a diffusion of the novel
conceptualization of the state as a mechanism consisting of institutions apart from
the dynastic household of the sultan to the writings of Bursevi. In many of his
writings, Bursevi not only addressed the sultan but also other actors within the state
apparatus such as administrators, judges, muftis and statesmen in directing his
advices for a better governance, acknowledging the significance of their positions.
However, it is difficult to suggest that his propositions targeted institutional reform,
rather his focus continued to be on the morality and religiosity of the people
occupying these posts.
Bursevis views regarding the ideal form of governance were shaped very
much by an understanding which saw in the organization of political authority a
manifestation of cosmic order. The state was sacred for it replicated the cosmic
organization in the temporal world and maintained order in the society. Any
deviation or imbalance in the state which arose from religious misguidance in the
form of extremities ended up in a return to disorder and chaos. The concepts used by
Bursevi in formulating his political thoughts were already existent in the Perso220

Islamic traditions and elaborated by Ottoman scholars from diverse backgrounds

mostly in nasihatnames. However, Bursevi further elaborated on the existing
imagery, concepts, motifs and conventions by articulating Ibn Arabis mystical
interpretations of political authority in his writings. Thus, the religio-political
discourse he entered into was fed by diverse traditions of political thought.
As a Sufi sheikh Bursevi projected his ideal form of self-governance
represented by the balance established by strict adherence to the sharia and to the
Sufi knowledge of the divine truth onto the ideal form of imperial governance. This
ideal was not only influenced by the ideas proposed by Ibn Arabi in his writings but
also a broader current of piety which spread in the Ottoman Empire since the
seventeenth century.
It is difficult to suggest from a limited selection of Bursevis writings that his
propositions to establish order were part of a larger reform agenda with clear
outlines. However, when they are handled with his life story, his commitment to the
formula commanding right and forbidding wrong and his conceptualization of the
pole as an active participant in social and political life as a guide, it becomes clear
that he indeed tried to give the Sufi sheikh agency. It was the Sufi sheikh as the pole
who was to intervene in the process of decline for the restoration of order. And
although it was only him who could change the existing situation by establishing the
balance between spiritual and political authorities, the intervention of the pole was
limited to guidance and training. Since Bursevi did pronounce his Polehood in
several of his texts with an unfettered self-confidence, it would not be far-fetched to
suggest that in a way he was trying to claim that agency for himself. He was to guide
both the common people and the sultan and show them the right path in religion.
221

Thus, through a discussion about sainthood and polehood in particular, Bursevi

legitimized the position of the competent Sufi sheikhs whom he equated with saints
vis--vis different power groups including the sultan. In juristic terms, by virtue of
being the inheritors of the prophet, Sufi sheikhs as saints had the right to interpret the
sharia. In political terms, all of the sultans decisions were bound to the pole even
though the sultan was not aware of it. And to establish order it was necessary that
sultan as the symbolic head of the state recognize and bow down to the authority of
the pole. In social terms, the Sufi sheikh as the saint had the capacity and
responsibility to educate people and lead them towards the right path by virtue of his
claim to religious orthodoxy.
Therefore, I propose that Bursevis religio-political commentaries and
discussions on sainthood were to a certain extent ideologically driven. Bursevi did
not open up space for direct or oppositional political action on behalf of the pole
though, his role was only indirect. Rather, he used the concept of the Pole as a
discursive tool to negotiate his position within the existing power relations. In this
regard, Bursevis pro-state comments which counseled obedience to authority figures
at all times is a strong indicator not only of his conformist stance but also of the
integration of the Sufis into the political culture of the ruling elites by the eighteenth
century. This can be taken as an example of the impacts that the process of
Sunnitization and institutionalization under the roof of the Ottoman state had on Sufi
groups: a process which had a long history going back to more than two centuries.

222

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abou-El-Haj, Rifaat. Formation of the Modern State: The Ottoman Empire,

Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries 2nd ed. New York: Syracuse University
Press, 2005.
-----------. The Expression of Ottoman Political Culture in the Literature of Advice
to Princes (Nasihatnameler): Sixteenth to Twentieth Centuries. in Sociology in
the Rubric of Social Science, ed. R. K. Bhattarcharya and A.K. Ghosh,
Calcutta, 1995. 282-292.
-----------. The Ottoman Nasihatname as a Discourse over Morality. in Mlanges
Professeur Robert Mantran, ed. Abdeljelil Temimi, Zeghouan: Publication du
Centre d'Etudes et de Recherches Ottomanes, 1988. 17-30.
-----------. Power and Social Order: the Uses of Kanun. in The Ottoman City and its
Parts: Structures and Social Order, eds. Irene A Bierman, Rifaaat Abou-ElHaj, and Donald Preziosi. New Rochelle: A.D. Caratzas, 1991. 77-99.
-----------. The 1703 Rebellion and the Structure of Ottoman Politics. Leiden:
Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te stanbul, 1984.
-----------. The Formal Closure of the Ottoman Frontier in Europe: 1699-1703.
Journal of the American Oriental Society 89, no. 3 (July-September, 1969):
467-475.
Ake, Zbeyir. smail Hakk Bursevi'nin Tuhfe-i Recebiyye Adl Eseri (ncelemeMetin). Ph.D. diss., Harran University, 2008.
Akidil, Mehmet Ali. smail Hakk Bursevi Hayat, Eserleri ve Tuhfe-i meriyyesi
(Tenkitli Metin). M.A. thesis Gazi University, 1996.
Akkaya, Veysel. smail Hakk Bursevi: Kbe ve nsan, Tuhfe-i Ataiyye. Istanbul:
nsan Yaynlar, 2000.
Al-Azmeh, Aziz. Muslim Kingship: Power and the Sacred in Muslim, Christian And
Pagan Polities. London, New York: I.B. Tauris, 1997.
Alaaddin, Bekri and Veysel Uysal. Abdlgani Nablusi: Hayat ve Fikirleri. Istanbul:
nsan Yaynlar, 1995.
Anetshofer, Helga. Meair-uarada Toplum-Tanmaz Sapkn Derviler. in
Ak elebi ve airler Tezkiresi zerine Yazlar, ed. Hatice Aynur and Asl
Niyaziolu. stanbul: Ko niversitesi Yaynlar, 2011.
223

Artan, Tlay. XVII. Yzyln kinci Yarsnda Edirne Bakent miydi? Osmanl
Bankas Mzesi Voyvoda Caddesi Toplantlar Metinleri,
http://www.obmuze.com/volvotop07.asp, 26 Sept. 2011.
-----------. Aspects of the Ottoman Elites Food Consumption: Looking For 'Staples,'
'Luxuries,' And 'Delicacies,' in a Changing Century. in Consumption Studies
and the History of the Ottoman Empire, ed. Donald Quataert. Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press 2000. 107-200.
-----------. Problems Relating to the Social History Context of the Acquisition and
Possession of Books as Parts of Collections of Objets dArt in the 18th
Century. Proceedings of the Xth International Congress of Turkish Art, 1723 September 1995. Geneva, 1999. 89-91.
Ak Paazade. Osmanoullarnn Tarihi. ed. Kemal Yavuz and M. A. Yekta Sara.
Istanbul: K Kitapl, 2003.
Akar, Mustafa. Niyazi Msri ve Tasavvuf Anlay. Ankara: Kltr Bakanl, 1998.
Ate, Sleyman. Kutb. in Trkiye Diyanet Vakf slm Ansiklopedisi vol. 26.
Ankara: Trkiye Diyanet Vakf, 2002. 489.
Aydoan, Zeynep. An Analysis of the Saltukname in Its Fifteenth Century
Context. M.A. thesis, Boazii University, 2007.
Ayni, Mehmed Ali. Trk Azizleri I: smail Hakk. Istanbul: Marifet Basmevi, 1944.
Ayvansarayi Hseyin Efendi, Ali Sat Efendi and Sleyman Besim Efendi,
Hadkat'l-Cevmi': stanbul Cmileri Ve Dier Dini-Sivil Mimri Yaplar, ed.
Ahmed Nezih Gelitekin. Istanbul: aret Yaynlar, 2001.
Aziz Efendi. Kanunname-i Sultani li Aziz Efendi, On Yedinci Yzylda Bir Osmanl
Devlet Adamnn Islahat Teklifleri, transl. Rhoads Murphey, ed. inasi Tekin.
Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University, 1985.
Bahadrolu, Mustafa. ftade, Tasavvufi Grleri ve Celvetiyye Tarikat. M.A.
thesis, Uluda University, 1990.
Baldrzade Selisi eyh Mehmed, Ravza-i Evliya, eds. Mefail Hzl and Murat
Yurtsever. Bursa: Arasta, 2000.
Ballanfat, Paul. The Nightingale in the Garden of Love: The Poems of Hazret-i Pir-i
ftade. Oxford: Anqa Publishing, 2005.
Barkan, mer L.. Kolonizatr Trk Dervileri (Istanbul: Hamle Yayn Datm,
n.d.).
224

Bayrak, Sami. Mehur Osmanl Sufilerinden ftade (1490-1580) ve Hl-I Tarkat

simli Eseri (Metin Transkribe ve Tahlili). M.A. thesis, Seluk University,
2010.
Bedirhan, Muhammed. Osman Fazl Atpazar: Hayat-Eserleri ve Tasavvuf
Grleri. M.A. thesis, Marmara University, 2006.
Bilkan, Ali Fuat. Nb: Hayat Sanat Eserleri. Ankara : Aka, 1999.
Birge, J. K. The Bektashi Order of Dervishes. London: Luzac Oriental, 1937.
Bytyqi,Taxhidin. Balkanlarda Celvetilik ve Mnir-i Belgradi. in Aziz Mahmud
Hdayi Uluslararas Sempozyum Bildirileri 20-22 Mays 2005, vol. II.
Istanbul: skdar Belediyesi, 2005. 219-238.
Canbakal, Hlya. The Ottoman State and Descendants of the Prophet in Anatolia
and the Balkans (c. 1500-1700). Journal of the Economic and Social History
of the Orient 52, (2009): 542-578.
Chodkiewicz, Michel. Seal of the Saints: Prophethood and Sainthood in the Doctrine
of Ibn Arabi. Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society, 1993.
Clayer, Nathalie. Mniri Belgradi: Un Reprsentant de la ilmiyye dans la rgion de
Belgrade fin XVIe dbut du XVIIe siecle. Frauen, Bilder und Gelehrte Arts, Women and Scholars, eds. Chistopth K. Neumann and Sabine Prator.
Istanbul: Simurg, 2002. 549-568.
-----------. Mystiques, Etat et Societe: Les Halvetis dans laire balkanique de la fin du
Xve siecle a nos jours, ed. Ulrich Haarman. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994.
-----------. Quand l'hagiographie se fait l'cho des drglements socio-politiques: Le
Menkibnme de Mniri Belgrd, Syncrtisme et hrsies dans l'Orient
seldjoukide et ottoman (Xve-XVIIe siecles) ed, Gilles Veinstein. Leuven:
Peeters, 2005. 363-381.
Curry, John J. The Transformation of Muslim Mystical Thought in the Ottoman
Empire: The Rise of the Halvet Order, 1350-1650. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press, 2010.
alr, Fatih. Decline of a Myth: Perspectives on the Ottoman Decline. The
History School, no. 9 (January-April, 2011): 37-60.
etiner, Bedrettin, Atpazar Osman Fazl ve el-Laihatl-Berkiyyt adl Tasavvuf
Tefsir Risalesi. Marmara niversitesi lahiyat Fakltesi Dergisi, no. 16-17
(1998-1999): 7-54.

225

Danmend, smail Hami. zahl slam Tarihi Kronolojisi vol. IV. Istanbul: Bb- li
Yaynevi, 1960.
Darling, Linda T. Political Change and Political Discourse in the Early Modern
Mediterranean World. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History 38, no. 4
(Spring 2008): 505-531.
Dner, Nuran. smail Hakk Bursevinin Kitab- Kebiri ve Bursevide Varidat
Kltr. Tasavvuf: lmi ve Akademik Aratrma Dergisi, no. 15 (2005): 311334.
Dressler, Markus. Inventing Orthodoxy: Competing Claims for Authority and
Legitimacy in the Ottoman-Safavid Conflict. in Legitimizing the OrderThe
Ottoman Rhetoric of State Power, ed. H. Karateke and M. Reinkowski. Leiden:
Brill, 2005. 151-176.
Efendi, lyas. smail Hakk Bursevinin Ktabs-Silsiletil-Celvetiyyesi. M.A.
thesis, Marmara University, 1994.
Erken, Ali. A Historical Analysis of Melami-Bayrami Hagiographies. M.A. thesis,
Boazii University, 2009.
Erahin, Sleyman. Bir Siyasetname rnei Sar Abdullah Efendi`nin Tedbir`n
Ne`eteyn fi Islah`n Nshateyn Adl Eserinin Transkripsiyonu Ve
Deerlendirilmesi. M.A. thesis, Krkkale University, 2002.
Ernsal, smail E. Trk Ktphaneleri Tarihi. Ankara: Atatrk Kltr, Dil ve Tarih
Yksek Kurumu, 1991.
Faroqhi, Suraiya. Anadoluda Bektailik. Istanbul: Simurg, 2003.
-----------.Bektashis: Report on Current Research. Bektachiyya: Etudes sur lordre
mystique des Bektachis et les groupes relevant de Hadji Bektach. eds.
Alexandre Popovic and Gilles Veinstein. Istanbul: Isis, 1995. 15-21.
Fetvac, Emine Fatma. Viziers to Eunuchs: Transitions in Ottoman Manuscript
Patronage, 1566-1617. Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 2005.
Finkel, Caroline. `The Treacherous Cleverness of Hindsight`: Myths of Ottoman
Decay. in Re-Orienting the Renaissance: Cultural Exchange with the East, ed.
Gerald M. Maclean. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. 148-174.
Fleischer, Cornell H. Bureaucrat and Intellectual in the Ottoman Empire: the
Historian Mustafa li (1541-1600). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
1986.
-----------. "From eyhzade Korkud to Mustafa li: Cultural Origins of the Ottoman
226

Nasihatname." IIIrd Congress on the Social and Political History of Turkey.

Princeton University 24-26 August 1983, eds. Heath W. Lowry and Ralph S.
Hattox. Istanbul: The Isis Press, 1990. 67-77.
-----------. "The Lawgiver as Messiah: The Making of the Imperial Image in the
Reign of Sleymn." Soliman le magnifique et son temps, ed. Gilles Veinstein.
Paris: La Documentation Franaise, 1992. 159-177.
Fodor, Pal. Sultan, Imperial Council, Grand Vizier: Change in the Ottoman Ruling
Elite and the Formation of the Grand Vizieral Telhis. Acta Orientalia
Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 47, no. 1-2 (1994): 67-85.
Glpnarl, Abdlbaki. Manakb- Hac Bekt- Vel "Vilyet-nme. Istanbul: nkilap
Kitabevi, 1958.
-----------. Simavna Kadsolu eyh Bedreddin. Istanbul: Eti, 1966.
Gler, Birgl A. and Nuray E. Keskin. Devlet Reformunu Tarihten almak. in
Tartma Metinleri no. 88 (November 2005). Accessed at
http://www.politics.ankara.edu.tr/eski/dosyalar/tm/SBF_WP_88.pdf,
10 September 2011.
Gven, Mustafa Salim. eitli Ynleriyle Aziz Mahmud Hdayinin Mektuplar.
M.A. thesis, Marmara University, 1992.
Hagen, Gottfried. Afterword: Ottoman Understandings of the World in the
Seventeenth Century, in An Ottoman Mentality: The World of Evliya elebi,
ed. Robert Dankoff. Leiden: Brill, 2004. 215-256.
El-Hakim,Suad. bnl-Arabi Szl, trans. Ekrem Demirli. Istanbul, Kabalc, 2005.
Hamadeh, Shirine. The City's Pleasures: Istanbul in the Eighteenth Century. Seattle,
WA: University of Washington Press, 2008.
-----------. Public Spaces and the Garden Culture of Istanbul in the Eighteenth
Century. in The Early Modern Ottomans: Remapping the Empire, ed. Virginia
H. Aksan and Dan Goffman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
277-312.
-----------. Ottoman Expressions of Early Modernity and the Inevitable Question of
Westernization. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 63, no. 1
(March, 2004): 32-51.
-----------. Splash and Spectacle: The Obsession with Fountains in EighteenthCentury Istanbul. Muqarnas 19, (2002): 123-148.

227

Hezarfen Hseyin Efendi, Telhsl-Beyn f Kavnn-i l-i Osman, ed. Sevim

lgren. Ankara: TTK Basmevi, 1988.
Holbrook, Victoria Rowe. Ibn Arabi and Ottoman Dervish Traditions: The Melami
Supra-Order. The Muhyiddin Ibn Arabi Society,
http://www.ibnarabisociety.org/articles/melami1.html, 2 Oct. 2011.
Howard, Douglas A. Genre and Myth in The Ottoman Advice for Kings Literature.
in The Early Modern Ottomans: Remapping the Empire, ed. Virginia H. Aksan
and Daniel Goffman. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. 137-166.
Hsameddin Bursevi, Menakb- Hazret-i ftade, ed. Abdurrahman Ynal. Bursa:
Celvet Yaynlar, 1996.
Hseyin Vassaf, Sefine-i Evliya vol. 5, eds. Mehmet Akku and Ali Ylmaz. Istanbul:
Kitabevi, 2006.
-----------. Kemalname-i Hakk (Bursevi Biyografisi), ed. Murat Yurtsever. Bursa:
Arasta, 2000.
Ibn Arabi. Ftuht- Mekkiyye vol. 11 trans. Ekrem Demirli. Istanbul: Litera
Yaynclk, 2009.
-----------. Ftuht- Mekkiyye vol. 10 trans. Ekrem Demirli. Istanbul: Litera
Yaynclk, 2009.
-----------. Ftuht- Mekkiyye vol. 1 trans. Ekrem Demirli. Istanbul: Litera
Yaynclk, 2009.
-----------. Divine Governance of the Human Kingdom (At-Tadbirat al-ilahiyyah fi
islah al-mamlakat al-insaniyyah), interp. Shaykh Tosun Bayrak al-Jerrahi alHalveti. Louisville: Fons Vitae, 1997.
-----------. Tedbirat- lahiyye: Tercme ve erhi. ed. Mustafa Tahral, interp. Ahmet
Avni Konuk. stanbul: z Yaynclk, 1992.
-----------.. Risaleler vol. 3, trans. Vahdettin nce. Istanbul: Kitsan, n.d.
Imber, Colin. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650: The Structure Of Power.
Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.
-----------. The Persecution of the Ottoman Shiites According to the Mhimme
Defterleri, 1565-1585. Der Islam 56, no. 2 (1979): 245-273.
nalck, Halil. Dervish and Sultan: An Analysis of the Otman Baba Vilayetnamesi.
The Middle East and the Balkans under the Ottoman Empire: Essays on
Economy and Society. Indiana: Bloomington, 1993. 19-36.
228

-----------. State, Sovereignty and Law During the Reign of Sleyman. Sleyman
the Second and His Time, eds. Halil nalck and Cemal Kafadar. Istanbul: Isis
Press, 1993. 69-102.

-----------. air ve Patron. Ankara: Dou Bat Yaynlar, 2003.

Itzkowitz, Norman. Eighteenth Century Ottoman Realities. Studia Islamica 16
(1962): 73-94.
slam Alimleri Ansiklopedisi vol. XVI. Istanbul: Trkiye Gazetesi Yaynlar, n.d.
smail Hakk Bursevi. Kitabn-Netice 2 vol. ed. Ali Naml and mdat Yava.
Istanbul: nsan Yaynlar, 1997.
-----------, cazetname. Beyazt Devlet Ktp., Genel, nr. 7890.
Kafadar, Cemal. Osmanl Siyasal Dncesinin Kaynaklar zerine Gzlemler. in
Modern Trkiyede Siyasi Dnce vol. 1, 8th ed. stanbul: letiim Yaynlar,
2009. 23-36.
-----------. The Question of Ottoman Decline. Harvard Middle Eastern and Islamic
Review 4, no. 1-2 (1999): 30-75.
-----------. Between Two Worlds: The Construction of the Ottoman State. Berkeley,
CA; London: University of California Press, 1995.
Kara, hsan. smail Hakk Bursevinin Tuhfe-i Hasekiyyesi (III. Blm). M.A.
thesis, Marmara niversitesi, 1997.
Karamustafa, Ahmet T. Sufism: The Formative Period. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press, 2007.
Katib elebi, Dsturul Amel li-slahil-Halel, trans. Ali Can. Ankara: Kltr ve
Turizm Bakanl Yaynlar, 1982.
-----------. Mizanl-Hakk fi htiyaril-Ehakk. Istanbul: Milli Eitim Basmevi, 1972.
-----------. The Balance of Truth, ed. G. L. Lewis. London: Allen and Unwin, 1957.
Kl, Rya. Osmanlda Seyyidler ve erifler. stanbul: Kitap Yaynevi, 2009.
Ko, Ahmet. smil Hakk Bursev'nin (v. 1137/1725) Tuhfe-i smiliyye Adl
Eseri. M.A. thesis, Yznc Yl niversitesi, 2008.

229

Koi Bey. Koi Bey Risalesi: (Eski ve yeni harflerle), ed. Ylmaz Kurt. Ankara:
Aka, 1998.
Kkyaln, Erdal. Janissary and Samurai: Early Modern Warrior Classes and
Religion. M.A. thesis, Boazii University, 2007.
Le Gall, Dina. A Culture of Sufism: Naqshbandis in the Ottoman World, 1450-1700.
New York: State University Press of New York, 2005.
Levend, Agah Srr. Siyaset-nameler. Trk Dili Aratrmalar Yll Belleten
(1962): 162-194.
Lewis, Bernard. Ottoman Observers of Ottoman Decline. Islamic Studies 1,
(1962): 71-87.
Limnili eyh Abdi-i Siyahi. Limnide Srgn Bir Veli Niyazi Msrinin Hatralar,
trans. Mustafa Tatc. stanbul: H Yaynlar, 2010.
Melikoff, Irene. Hac Bekta- Veli: Efsaneden Geree. stanbul: Cumhuriyet, 1998.
Morris, James W. Except His Face: The Political and Aesthetic Dimensions of Ibn
Arabis Legacy. Journal of the Muhyiddn Ibn 'Arab Society 23, (1998): 113.
Muslu, Ramazan. Osmanl Toplumunda Tasavvuf (18. Yzyl). Istanbul: nsan
Yaynlar, 2003.
Naml Ali. smail Hakk Bursevi: Hayat, Eserleri, Tarikat Anlay. Istanbul: nsan
Yaynlar, 2001.
Ocak, Ahmet Yaar. XIV. Yzyln Ahlatl nl Bir Sufi Feylesofu: eyh
Bedreddinin Hocas eyh Hseyn-i Ahlati
-----------. Ahilik ve eyh Edebali: Osmanl Devletinin Kurulu Tarihi
Asndan Bir Sorgulama. in Yenialar Anadolusunda slamn Ayak zleri.
Istanbul: Kitap Yaynevi, 2011. 13-22.
-----------. Osmanl Sufiliine Baklar. Istanbul: Tima, 2011.
-----------. Osmanl mparatorluunda Dnce Hayat, 14.-17. Yzyllar.
Yenialar Anadolusunda slamn Ayak Sesleri: Osmanl Dnemi. Istanbul:
Kitap Yaynevi, 2011. 147-192.
-----------. Sar Saltuk ve Saltukname. Osmanl Sufiliine Baklar. Istanbul: Tima,
2011. 11-22.

230

-----------. Zndklar ve Mlhidler (15.-17. Yzyllar). Istanbul: Tarih Vakf Yurt

Yaynlar, 1998.
O'Fahey, R. S. and Bernd Radtke. Neo-Sufism Reconsidered. Der Islam 70 (1993):
52-87.
ztrk, eyda and Mehmet Ali Akidil eds. Tuhfe: Seyr-i Sluk. Istanbul: nsan
Yaynlar, 2000.
Peirce, Leslie. The Material World: Ideologies and Ordinary Things. in The
Early Modern Ottomans: Remapping the Empire, ed. Virginia H. Aksan and
Dan Goffman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. 213-232.
-----------. The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Peters, Rudolph. Reinhard Shulzes Quest for an Islamic Enlightenment, in Die
Welt des Islams XXX (1990), pp. 160-162.
-----------. The Battered Dervishes of Bab-Zuwayla: A Religious Riot in Eighteenth
Century Cairo. in Eighteenth-Century Renewal and Reform in Islam,
ed. Nehemia Levtzion and John O. Voll. Syracuse: Syracuse Univ. Press, 1987.
93-115.
Piterberg, Gabriel. An Ottoman Tragedy: History and Historiography at Play.
Berkeley, CA; London: University of California Press, 2003.
Pocock, J. G.A. Political Thought and History: Essays on Theory and Method.
Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Quataert, Donald. Ottoman History Writing and the Changing Attitudes towards the
Notion of Decline. History Compass 1, no. 1 (January-December 2003: 1-9.
Radtke, Bernd. Sufism in the 18th Century: An Attempt at a Provisional Appraisal.
Die Welt des Islams 36, no. 3 (November 1996): 326-364.
Renard, John. Friends of God: Islamic Images of Piety, Commitment and
Servanthood. Berkeley, CA; London: University of California Press, 2008.
El-Rouayheb, Khaled. The Myth of The Triumph of Fanaticism in the
Seventeenth-Century Ottoman Empire. Die Welt des Islams 48, no. 2 (2008):
196-221.
Sajdi, Dana. Decline, Its Discontents and Ottoman Cultural History: By Way Of
Introduction. in Ottoman Tulips, Ottoman Coffee: Leisure And Lifestyle in The
Eighteenth Century, ed. idem. London, New York: Tauris Academic Studies,
2007. 1-40.
231

Salzmann, Ariel. The Age of Tulips: Confluence and Conflict in Early Modern
Consumer Culture (1500-1730). in Consumption Studies and the History of
the Ottoman Empire ed. Donald Quataert. Albany: State University of New
York Press, 2000. 83-105.
Sar Abdullah Efendi. Telhisn-Nesayih, trans. Osmanzade Ahmet Taib. Istanbul:
Ceride-i Havadis Matbaas, 1866.
Sar Mehmet Paa. Ottoman Statecraft: The Book of Counsel for Vezirs and
Governors (Nas'ih l-vzera ve'l-mera) of Sari Mehmed Pasha, the
Defterdr, ed. Walter Livingston Wright, Jr. London: H. Milford, Oxford
University Press; Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1935.
Schmitt, Carl. Siyasi lahiyat. Ankara: Dost Kitabevi, 2005.
Shaw, Stanford, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey vol. I Empire of
the Gazis. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1976.
Shams al-Din Ahmad Aflaki, The Feats of the Knowers of God: Manaqeb al-arefin.
ed. John OKane. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2002.
Sirriyeh Elizabeth. Sufi Visionary of Ottoman Damascus: Abd al-Ghani alNabulusi, 1641-1731. London; New York: Routledge Curzon, 2005.
Snmez, Ebru. An Acem Statesman in the Ottoman Court: dris-i Bidls and the
Making of the Ottoman Policy on Iran. M.A. thesis, Boazii University,
2006.
Sreyya, Mehmed. Sicill-i Osmani vol. III. Istanbul: Kltr Bakanl ile Trkiye
Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakf , 1996.
eyh Mekki Efendi, bn Arabi Mdafaas. transl. Ahmed Neyli Efendi, ed. Halil
Baltac. Istanbul: Gelenek, 2004.
imek, Halil brahim. Osmanlda mceddidilik : XII/XVIII. Yzyl. Suf Yaynlar,
2004.
Tabakolu, Mehmet. smail Hakk Bursev'nin Tuhfe-i Hasekiyyesinin kinci
Blm (Metin ve Tahlil). M.A. Thesis, Marmara University, 2008.
Tatc, Mustafa, M. Ceml ztrk, and Taxhiddin Bytyqi eds. Selami Ali Efendi:
Hayat, Tarikat-nmesi ve Vakfyesi. stanbul: Kakns Yaynlar, 2006.
Ter Haar, J. G. J. Follower and Heir of the Prophet: Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi as
Mystic. Leiden : Het Oosters Instituut, 1992.

232

Terziolu, Derin. Sufis in the Age of State-Building and Confessionalization, 13001600. in The Ottoman World, ed. C. Woodhead. London: Routledge, 2011.
-----------. Sunna-Minded Sufi Preachers in Service of the Ottoman State: The
Nasihatname of Hasan Addressed to Murad IV. Archivum Ottomanicum, no.
27 (2010).
-----------. Sufi and Dissident in the Ottoman Empire: Niyazi-i Misri (1618-1694).
Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1999.
Tezcan, Baki. The Second Ottoman Empire: Political and Social Transformation in
the Early Modern World. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
-----------. The Politics Of Early Modern Ottoman Historiography. in The
Early Modern Ottomans: Remapping the Empire, ed. Virginia H. Aksan and
Daniel Goffman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.167-198.
-----------. The 1622 Military Rebellion in stanbul: A Historiographical Journey. in
Mutiny and Rebellion in the Ottoman Empire, ed. Jane Hathaway. Madison:
University of Wisconsin, Center for Turkish Studies, 2004. 25-43.
-----------. Searching for Osman: A Reassesment of the Deposition of the Ottoman
Sultan Osman II (1618-1622). Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 2001.
Tezeren, Ziver. Seyyid Aziz Mahmud Hdayi: Hayat, ahsiyeti, Tarikat ve Eserleri.
Istanbul: Edebiyat Fakltesi Basmevi, 1994.
The Sublime Quran, 6th ed. trans. Laleh Bakhtiar. Chicago: Kazi Publications, 2009.
Thomas, Lewis V. A Study of Naima, ed. Norman Itzkowitz. New York: New York
University Press, 1972.
Thys-enocak, Lucienne. Ottoman Women Builders: The Architectural Patronage of
Hadice Turhan Sultan. Aldershot; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2006.
Tietze, Andreas, Mustafa Alis Counsel for Sultans of 1581, 2 vols. Wien: Verlag der
sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1979-1982.
Ustaolu, Seyyid Osman. Tarikatler ve Silsileleri: Gemiten Gnmze. Ankara:
Filiz Matbaaclk, 2002.
Uzunarl, smail Hakk. Osmanl Tarihi, vol. III pt. I. Ankara: Trk Tarih Kurumu,
1951.
Vassaf, Hseyin. Kemalname-i Hakk (Bursevi Biyografisi), ed. Murat Yurtsever.
Bursa: Arasta, 2000.

233

von Schlegell, Barbara Rosenow. Sufism in the Ottoman Arab World: Shaykh Abd
al-Ghani al-Nabulusi (d. 1143/1731). Ph.D. diss., University of California,
1997.
Wilson, Brett. The Failure of Nomenclature: The Concept of Orthodoxy in the
Study of Islam. Comparative Islamic Studies 3, no. 2 (2007): 169-194.
Winter, Michael. Society and Religion in Early Ottoman Egypt. New Brunswick:
Transaction Books, 1982.
Yavuz, Yusuf evki. Hakkel-Yakin. in Trkiye Diyanet Vakf slam Ansiklopedisi
vol. 15. Ankara: Trkiye Diyanet Vakf, 1997. 203-204.
Yldz, Sakb. brahim Hakk Hazretlerinin Ahlk Anlay. Atatrk niversitesi
slami limler Fakltesi Dergisi, no. 4 (1980): 133-142
-----------. Trk Mfessiri smail Hakk Burusevinin Hayat. Atatrk niversitesi
slami limler Fakltesi Dergisi, no. 1 (1975): 103-126.
Ylmaz, Hasan Kamil. Aziz Mahmud Hdayi ve Celvetiyye Tarikat. stanbul: Erkam
Yaynlar, 1990.
Ylmaz, Hseyin. Osmanl Devletinde Batllama ncesi Merutiyeti
Gelimeler. Divan Disiplinleraras almalar Dergisi 13, no. 28 (2008): 130
-----------. The Sultan and the Sultanate: Envisioning Rulership in the Age of
Sleyman the Lawgiver (1520-1566). Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 2005.
Ylmaz, Necdet. Osmanl Toplumunda Tasavvuf: Sufiler, Devlet ve Ulema (XVII:
Yzyl). Istanbul: Osmanl Aratrmalar Vakf, 2001.
Zilfi, Madeline C. Politics of Piety: the Ottoman Ulema in the Postclassical Age
(1600-1800). Minneapolis, MN: Bibliotheca Islamica, 1988.
-----------. The Kadzadelis: Discordant Revivalism in Seventeenth Century
Istanbul. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 45, no. 4 (1986): 251-269.
-----------. Elite Circulation in the Ottoman Empire: Great Mollas of the Eighteenth
Century. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 26, no. 3
(1983): 318-364.

234